Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

DUNDEE CORPORATION (WATER TRANSPORT FINANCE &C.) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to Dundee Corporation (Water Transport Finance &c.)," presented by Mr. Stuart; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered Tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 107.]

FORTH ROAD BRIDGE ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to the Forth Road Bridge," presented by Mr. Stuart; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 108.]

GLASGOW CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, lating to Glasgow Corporation," presented by Mr. Stuart; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 109.]

RUTHERGLEN BURGH ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to Rutherglen Burgh," presented by Mr. Stuart; read the first time, and ordered (under Section 9 of the Act) to be read a Second time upon Thursday 20th May, and to be printed. [Bill 110.]

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Parcel and Mail Losses (Compensation)

Mr. Parkin: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he will make better arrangements for drawing the attention of the public to the conditions under which they have no right of compensation for loss of parcels or registered mail.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. David Gammans): Constant efforts are made through such media as the Post Office Guide, notices in post offices and in periodical statements issued with the cooperation of the Press and the B.B.C. to make these conditions known to the posting public; and if the hon. Member has any particular case in mind and will let me have particulars, I will gladly make inquiry.

Mr. Parkin: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for his reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that most people who find that they have paid money for protection which they did not get are told that the regulations are to be found in the Post Office Guide? Does he not agree that that is not good enough and that no private firm would be able to get away with a system of that kind, and will he intensify the system which he mentioned for explaining these matters to the public in the post office and in the Press?

Mr. Gammans: It is not only in the Post Office Guide that the information is given. I note that we have given two notices to the Press this year, and I think that both were transmitted over the B.B.C. Also, there are notices in the post offices themselves where people register letters or parcels.

Telegrams (Postal Delivery)

Mr. Skeffington: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General when he proposes to restore the service of the night telegram letter.

Mr. Gammans: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Inverness (Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton) on 31st March, 1954.

Older Persons (Employment)

Mr. Albu: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General the policy of his Department for the employment of older men and women.

Mr. Gammans: In accordance with the policy of the Government, so far as Post Office Departmental grades are concerned the aim is to give older men and women opportunities of employment so far as is consistent with efficiency and with other commitments, such as the employment of ex-Service men. To quote an example, the upper recruitment age for postmen, telephonists and telegraphists is now 60 years. If the hon. Member has any individual case in mind and will let me have particulars, I will gladly make inquiry.

Mr. Albu: How can the hon. Gentleman reconcile his statement of policy, and that of his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, with the case which I brought to his attention in the Post Office Savings Department of a man who appeared to me to be extremely efficient and capable and was discharged although he was certainly no older than those mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour in the speech which he made to the Rotary International?

Mr. Gammans: Possibly there were other factors concerned in the case.

Building, Victoria Street (Use)

Mr. Stokes: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether the building to be erected on the north side of Christ-church Green, Victoria Street, is to be used solely as a telephone exchange.

Mr. Gammans: No, Sir; the building will also include a public post office but will be used entirely for Post Office purposes.

Mr. Stokes: When the hon. Gentleman says "public post office," does he mean merely for handing stuff over the counter and that it will not become a general post office with a large number of post office vans outside?

Mr. Gammans: No, Sir. It will be a public Crown office.

Mr. W. R. Williams: I hope that the Assistant Postmaster-General will not take it from the Question that any place is suitable for a post office. We want

very good premises and the best facilities possible?

Mr. Gammans: The right hon. Gentleman's point was that the place was not suitable for a post office.

Mr. Stokes: No, Sir. On a point of explanation, is not the Assistant Postmaster-General aware that I resent the place being used for either a post office or a telephone exchange? If it must be so used, we must at least avoid adding to the congestion of traffic which is already absolutely insufferable.

Mr. Williams: Will the Assistant Postmaster-General take good care not to have my right hon. Friend as a consultant or adviser on this matter?

Sub-Offices

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General how many sub-post offices exist in the borough of Leyton; how many of these are likely to be closed in view of the expansion of services and transactions; and what are the requirements of his Department in respect of extended facilities in sub-post offices when this is made necessary by the increased number of persons who attend sub-post offices.

Mr. Gammans: Seventeen, it is not the present intention to close any of them. Sub-postmasters are expected to provide sufficient accommodation and staff to enable the public to transact their business with reasonable despatch. If the hon. Member has any particular case of difficulty in mind and will let me have details, I shall be glad to have inquiries made.

Mr. Sorensen: Is any consideration given to the question of space in some of these sub-post offices? There may be certain facilities, but sometimes in some sub-post offices there is a good deal of overcrowding.

Mr. Gammans: The trouble lies in the number of transactions which the Post Office has to carry out, and the work increases every year. Some sub-post offices which were quite large enough a few years ago are certainly getting overcrowded now.

Mr. Sorensen: What will be done about the sub-post offices which are becoming overcrowded?

Mr. Gammans: The idea is either to open more sub-post offices or, if it is feasible to enlarge existing ones.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what progress has been made in providing another sub-post office in Brixton to replace the one formerly operated on the premises of Bon Marché Limited, Brixton Road, S.W.9.

Mr. Gammans: Since I replied to the hon. and gallant Member's last Question on this subject the vacancy has been advertised twice, but without success. We intend to advertise it again, and I should be grateful for any help the hon. and gallant Member can give in the matter.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the Assistant Postmaster-General aware that it has already proved quite impossible to find a sub-postmaster willing to undertake the job on the present inadequate scales? In those circumstances, will he consider opening a new Crown office in the Brixton Road at the interception with Stockwell Road, because the volume of postal business there would amply justify such action?

Mr. Gammans: I am not quite as pessimistic as the hon. and gallant Gentleman is. I still hope that, with more advertisements and also with such help as he himself can give us, we may find someone.

Mr. Deedes: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what action he proposes to take in response to the petition from residents of Tenterden for a sub-post office at the western end of the borough.

Mr. Gammans: I have looked personally into the matter raised by the petition, but I am sorry that I should not be justified in present circumstances in providing a new sub-post office, as the suggested site is barely half a mile from the existing Crown office in Tenterden.

Mr. Deedes: Is my hon. Friend aware that in this case as distinct from a great many cases of this sort which come to him, there is a tenant who is willing to act on his behalf as the sub-post office tenant, and that there is a pressing local need for this sub-post office?

Mr. Gammans: My difficulty, I am afraid, is that, unless we are going to change the standard under which we open new post offices, this case does not justify our opening a new office. If we were to change the standard, the cost of postal services would without doubt rise.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Will the Assistant Postmaster-General ascertain whether the gentleman in Tenterden who is willing to open a sub-post office can be persuaded to come to Brixton? I cannot find anyone at Brixton.

Mr. Gammans: I suggest that the hon. and gallant Gentleman gets in touch with my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) to enable them to ascertain what they can do in the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE SERVICE

Personal Case, Leeds

Mr. G. Jeger: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General when Mr. J. Crosland, Palmerston Lodge, Fairburn, near Leeds, may expect to be supplied with the telephone for which he applied in 1951.

Mr. Gammans: I hope this telephone will be supplied towards the end of the year, when wires become available.

Mr. Jeger: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this man, my constituent, is an agricultural engineer who is constantly in demand in the agricultural area surrounding the village of Fairburn where he lives? Is it not possible to expedite the fitting of a telephone to this man's premises?

Mr. Gammans: I am afraid that it is not possible. There are no spare wires in the cable which serves the locality in which the man lives. I would also point out that when we do the job we shall have to put up seven poles and over half a mile of wire.

Blackpool

Mr. R. Robinson: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General how many telephone subscribers in the Blackpool, North Shore, South Shore and Marton telephone exchanges use shared lines.

Mr. Gammans: The figures are 394, 596, 383 and 288.

Robinson: Can my hon. Friend say whether efforts are being made to give private lines to those subscribers who want them?

Mr. Gammans: Our desire is to give private lines to any private subscriber who desires one. I am glad to say that the number of people who are waiting has decreased considerably in the past year.

Mr. R. Robinson: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General the reasons for the delay in providing telephones in the Blackpool, North Shore, South Shore and Marton telephone exchanges.

Mr. Gammans: Nearly 1,500 telephones were connected in the past 12 months and the waiting list was reduced by over 1,200. I hope it will be possible to maintain this high rate of provision during the current year, but progress in clearing the waiting list depends upon the level of new demand and on the provision of additional cables and equipment, which are planned.

Mr. R. Robinson: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General how many existing subscribers and how many outstanding applications there were for telephones on the Blackpool, North Shore, South Shore and Marton telephone exchanges, respectively, on 1st April, 1946, 1st April, 1950, and each subsequent 1st April.

Mr. Gammans: As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the information:


—
Blackpool
North Shore
South Shore
Marton


Number of subscribers at 1st April






1946…
3,806
1,232
1,730
629


1950…
5,363
1,538
2,070
793


1951…
5,484
1,633
2,175
896


1952…
5,570
1,814
2,232
966


1953…
5,553
1,884
2,228
984


1954…
6,119
1,911
2,611
1,015


Outstanding applications at 1st April






1946…
268
142
140
50


1950…
1,032
579
991
248


1951…
1,290
636
1,075
269


1952…
1,442
444
993
223


1953…
1,663
415
1,114
227


1954…
986
391
623
175

Whipps Cross Exchange, Leyton

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General when it is anticipated that the new automatic telephone exchange will be constructed and in use at Whipps Cross, Leyton; and, in consequence, what adjustments and extensions are likely to affect the local telephone service.

Mr. Gammans: Whipps Cross, Leyton, is served by Leytonstone and Keystone exchanges. A new exchange to serve part of this area is to be provided, but it will not be ready for some time. Meanwhile, the existing exchanges will be extended as required to met development. It is hoped to connect some 1,000 additional lines in Leyton during the current financial year.

Mr. Sorensen: Does that mean that a new name is to be given to the exchange? Can he give some idea when the building is likely to be finished, seeing that it is next door to my house?

Mr. Gammans: I am sorry that we cannot serve the hon. Gentleman a little better than that. A new exchange is to be provided to serve the Coppermill subscribers. So far as I know, no name has yet been given to it.

ROYAL AIR FORCE

Used Lubricating Oils

Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air, taking into account present day costs of purchasing lubricating oil, the present day costs of re-refining used lubricating oil and the price today being received by his Department for waste oil, what saving of public money is expected as a result of the reversal of his policy of having used lubricating oil laundered for re-use.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. George Ward): I cannot give an exact figure, but we expect to save several thousand pounds a year.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Obviously I cannot ask my hon. Friend for the exact prices, but can he say, as this must obviously have been the basis upon which he made the decision, by what percentage the cost of re-refining used oil and the price of waste oil have fallen?

Mr. Ward: I cannot give the percentage, but I can tell my hon. Friend the basis upon which we arrived at the decision. Our comparison was made between, on the one hand, the cost of new oil less the proceeds from the sale of used oil, and, on the other hand, the cost of re-refining plus transport and other costs.

Mr. Stokes: Would not the whole position be greatly eased if the price of crude oil was reduced?

Mr. Ward: That is another matter. At the moment the cost of re-refining used oil is greater than that of buying new oil.

Helicopter Flights, London

Mr. Dodds: asked the Undersecretary of State for Air on how many occasions Royal Air Force helicopters have been used for transportation purposes to or from built-up areas near the centre of London; and what safety precautions are required to be observed.

Mr. Ward: Since the beginning of 1952, about 60 flights have been made in Central London by Royal Air Force helicopters flown by Army pilots. The safety regulations are essentially the same as for other types of aircraft, but in addition helicopters must as far as possible follow the line of the Thames, and may not take off if visibility is less than 1,000 yards or the cloud base is less than 500 feet.

Mr. Dodds: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that he is running the population of London into terrible risks by flying these single-engined helicopters over London? If he does not think that this means running very big risks, will he have a chat with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation?

Mr. Ward: I think that helicopter operations over London are safe provided that the flying regulations are observed, and our flying regulations are essentially the same as those for civil aviation.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Is my hon. Friend aware that a considerable body of opinion both in London and outside it feels that if the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation is erring it is on the side of timidity rather than adventure?

Royal Air Escort (Auxiliary Squadrons)

Air Commodore Harvey: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air why the Royal Auxiliary Air Force fighter squadrons are not taking part in the Royal fly-past on Saturday, 15th May.

Mr. Ward: The recommendations for the Air Escort which my noble Friend submitted to Her Majesty did not include squadrons of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force, because these squadrons could not take part in the many rehearsals which are necessary.

Air Commodore Harvey: Is my hon. Friend aware that last summer similar objections were raised against 603 Squadron taking part in the Royal fly-past at Edinburgh and that, only after pressure from high quarters, did it take part? How does he expect the morale of these pilots to be kept up ready to go into action against a possible enemy when they are not allowed to take part in a fly-past, particularly as they were not allowed last summer even to fly in the Royal review? Will he look into the matter again?

Mr. Ward: My hon. and gallant Friend will know from personal experience that these air escorts or fly-pasts need a tremendous amount of practice and a lot of rehearsals for which auxiliary squadrons are not available in mid-week. He will also know from personal experience that this kind of flying and the rehearsals for these occasions are not, perhaps, the best form of training for squadrons whose time for training must inevitably be limited.

Air Commodore Harvey: While I appreciate the point which my hon. Friend has raised, will he look at it from quite another angle? These young men give up a tremendous amount of their spare time. I am certain that, if the will had been there, arrangements could have been made for the practices to be carried out on three evenings a week and at the week-end. The situation is bad for morale.

Mr. Ward: I must say one word on that. My hon. and gallant Friend will no doubt realise that these practices fly right across the London control zone. We had to carry them out at a time which was most convenient for the Ministry of


Civil Aviation, and it was also very much in our own interests to carry them out at the time that the escort would fly on the day itself.

Mr. A. Henderson: Will the Minister make it quite clear that there is no suggestion that the flying efficiency of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force Squadrons is not sufficiently high to permit them to take part in such fly-pasts?

Mr. Ward: None whatever, Sir.

Pharmacy (Status)

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Under-secretary of State for Air whether he will give recognition to pharmacy as a distinct branch of the medical service in the Royal Air Force.

Mr. Ward: No, Sir.

Mr. Chetwynd: Is the Minister satisfied with the training and status of people in this branch of the Royal Air Force?

Mr. Ward: Yes, Sir. The medical technician branch have places for such few officers as we need who are skilled in pharmacy, and also plays a part within the service as an outlet for airman dispensers.

Mr. Chetwynd: Will the hon. Gentleman be prepared to reopen discussions with the Pharmaceutical Society?

Mr. Ward: I understand that we have discussed this matter with them for a number of years, and I do not think it would serve a useful purpose.

Wahnerheide Detention Barracks, Germany

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he has now received the report of the court of inquiry into the administration of the field punishment and detention unit at Wahnerheide, Germany; and what action he has taken.

Mr. Ward: I am expecting the report of the court of inquiry soon. As I told the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) in reply to his Question on 28th April, I shall make a statement on this whole matter as soon as I can.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the Minister aware that recent revelations by prisoners came as a very great shock to public

opinion, and will he give an assurance that he will take every possible step open to him to make the officers responsible for the supervision of these places realise their duties, as well as the non-commissioned officers who have already been punished?

Mr. Ward: I understand that the Command Headquarters expect to be able to send the result of the court of inquiry to the Air Ministry by the end of this week, and then we shall study it very carefully. I have no doubt that we shall find that the points raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman have been fully covered by the inquiry.

RAILWAYS

Superannuation (Representations)

Mr. Morley: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he has considered the telegram from the Railway Superannuitants Conference at Rhyl calling for a square deal for British Railway superannuitants; and what action he proposes to take.

The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): Yes, Sir. A year ago, the British Transport Commission introduced a scheme of pension supplements to help the worst cases among the railway pensioners. As I explained to the House during the debate on the Adjournment on 17th March, 1953, I must have regard to the Commission's statutory duties to make ends meet, and I do not think I should be justified in trying to influence their judgment in this matter.

Mr. Morley: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that, during that debate, he stated that the increases which he was then promising would be given to over 6,000 superannuitants, and that, actually, only 2,820 superannuitants have received the increases because the ceiling is so low? Is he not aware that there is a great deal of discontent, and will he look at the matter again?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I was very glad to be able to announce to the House the actual action by me in this field, which had been so long neglected. I will certainly look into the figures given by the hon. Member. The Commission must have regard both to a fair arrangement


with their employees in the field of pensions and a fair arrangement with the customer in the field of fares and freights.

Sir F. Markham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is very great dissatisfaction on both sides of this House at the way in which the British Transport Commission are treating these prewar superannuitants, and that the present scheme does not come up to the expectations given to the House in the Adjournment debate of 21st March last year, which I had the honour to initiate? Will he do all he can to impress upon the British Transport Commission the need for generous treatment for these men, who have given a lifetime's service to the railways of this country?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have no reason to think that the undertakings I gave on behalf of the Commission, which has the responsibility in this field, have not been lived up to. Certainly, the Commission and I will read these supplementary questions with interest.

Mr. Morris: Is the Minister aware that the concession brings these men only to National Assistance level? Will he use his influence to prevail upon the British Transport Commission to do something for these men in their present plight, because this concession is very much overdue?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have nothing to add to the statement I have made, but 1 am very ready to look into how far—and I think completely—the undertaking which I gave on behalf of the Commission has been carried out.

Mr. Robson Brown: While sympathising with the railway superannuitants, can my right hon. Friend state whether, arising out the negotiations at present taking place in the railway world, we can hope for a square deal for the railway using public?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have always got that in mind, too.

Trains (Driver-Guard Communication)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he is aware that on British Railways there is no means provided by which the guard of a train can communicate with

the engine driver of the same train without stopping the train; that it is likely to lead to accidents; and if he will give a general direction to the British Transport Commission that such means of communication are to be provided.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Hugh Molson): Although the only means by which the guard can attract the driver's attention is by applying the continuous brake, experience has not shown that anything further is required in the interests of safety.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that this is likely to cause accidents, especially in the north of Scotland, where people who open and close the gates at level crossings have been dismissed; and, as a result, the engine fireman at each level crossing has to get down four times in order to allow the train to pass the level crossing and open and close the gates? Is he also aware that this is all due to the absence of the people who used to open the gates at level crossings, because there is no communication between the driver and the guard of the train?

Mr. Molson: I do not follow how this awkward predicament in the north of Scotland has any bearing on the question of communication between the driver and the guard.

Mr. Hughes: Perhaps the Minister is not aware that there are railways in the north of Scotland, and that we need some means of communication with the driver of the train; and that this kind of thing gives rise to accidents, because of the absence of the people who formerly opened the gates at these crossings?

Mr. Molson: I am not aware that any accident has happened in this way.

TRANSPORT

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As I indicated in reply to a Question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central (Brigadier Medlicott) on 28th October, 1953, the expenditure involved in setting up and manning compulsory testing stations could not be contemplated at the present time, but I am exploring the possibility of preliminary experiments on a local and voluntary basis.

Accidents (Liability)

Mr. Page: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will institute an inquiry into the desirability and practical possibility of legislation imposing upon the driver of a motor vehicle absolute liability for injury caused by that vehicle to children under eight years of age and adults over 70 years of age.

Lennox-Boyd: I do not think such a proposal would really be desirable or fair.

Mr. Page: Has my right hon. Friend observed the remarks of a learned High Court judge on this subject, and will he refer the matter to his Road Safety Committee for consideration?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It is always open to the Road Safety Committee to raise any matter they choose, but, to increase the premium on all motorists so that they should be made liable for accidents, even when they have no responsibility for them whatever, would be extremely unfair.

Vehicles (Inspection)

Mr. Page: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether, having regard to the view expressed by the Director of Road Research of his Department, that annual inspection of all vehicles would cost £2½million and would hold out the hope of eliminating 20 per cent, of all accidents and saving £20 million, he will introduce legislation to make such inspection compulsory.

Trolley Buses (Replacement)

Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what increase in the number of public transport vehicles, licensed under his regulations, will result from the decision of the London Transport Executive to replace 70-seat trolley buses with 64-seat diesel buses; and what steps he is taking to see that an increase of traffic congestion will not be the result.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am told by the British Transport Commission that so far as can be foreseen the replacement will involve an increase of about 30 vehicles. Experience indicates that the motorbus, with its greater mobility, is less liable to cause traffic congestion in London streets. Further, the diesel buses will be shorter than the existing trolley buses.

Langford-Holt: Is my right hon. Friend aware that diesel buses will be dirtier than trolley buses and that cancer researchers have been considering that the fumes given out by diesel buses are dangerous and noxious?

Mr. I. O. Thomas: Will the Minister indicate what he means by "so far as can be foreseen"? How far does he foresee?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The health consequences of the substitution of diesel buses was dealt with by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health in reply to a Question on 6th May. "So far as can be foreseen" was a prudent observation because, if the Commission or the Executive substitute these buses for all their trolley buses it would mean 30 more vehicles. They may decide, on examination, not to go as far as that

H. Morrison: Is it not the case —I know it was, but I do not know whether it still is—that trolley buses are cheaper vehicles to run than petrol or diesel buses? Are they not cleaner and sweeter-moving vehicles than the others, and is the right hon. Gentleman quite sure that the London Transport Executive is right to make this change?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have no reason to think that the intelligence of London Transport has diminished since the right hon. Gentleman had responsibilty for it.

Mr. Renton: Is there any evidence that economies will be achieved by replacing the trolley buses?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I understand that the operator in this field, who should, I think, be given the responsibility, agrees both that it will be better to run and will take up less road space.

Mr. Morrison: May I ask the Minister whether he does not think it a good general rule that when a Minister is asked a polite question he should give a polite answer; and that even when he gets a cheeky question it is also sometimes best to give a polite reply?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I would not have thought it very rude to say that, as a result of six years' experience of Socialist Government, people's intelligence had not diminished.

Traffic Census (Costs)

Mr. Awbery: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation why local authorities are called upon to bear half the cost of the traffic census which is to be taken in August; and, as this is a national question, if he will also make it a national charge.

Mr. Molson: On trunk roads the whole cost of the census is being met from the Road Fund. My right hon. Friend has no power to contribute more than half the cost of the census on Class I roads, and I think that it is reasonable that the responsible highway authorities should contribute to the cost on such roads.

Mr. Awbery: Does not the Minister think that, as all the advantages accruing from this census will be of a national character, the charge should be borne nationally? Could he not meet from the Road Fund the charges in the cities as well as those of the trunk roads?

Mr. Molson: No, Sir, that is not the case. A great deal of information will be obtained, from this census which will be at least as useful to local highway authorities as to the Ministry of Transport.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

Queensferry Bridge

Mrs. White: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what progress has been made with the proposals for the Queensferry Bridge.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The report by consulting engineers referred to in my answer of 16th December has just been received, and I shall need a little time to consider it.

. White: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been drawn to the concern expressed last week by the Chief Constable of Flintshire about the extreme congestion on this bridge, and will he do his utmost to expedite action following the report?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I will certainly expedite consideration.

National Safety Committee

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation on how many occasions the National Road Safety

Committee has met since 1st December, 1953; and what is the date of the next meeting.

Mr. Molson: The Committee has met once during this period. The next meeting will be held on 24th June.

Mr. Dodds: Has the hon. Gentleman's Department very much confidence in this Committee? There is a feeling that relations are not very happy.

Mr. Molson: Yes, Sir. We have very great confidence in them. The Committee met a number of times last year and made certain proposals, and we shall try to give effect to them.

Road Safety Bill

Mr. Blyton: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he is aware of the concern of the road safety committees in County Durham at the upward trend of road accidents; and if he will reconsider his decision and introduce the Road Safety Bill as promised in the Gracious Speech.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, Sir. I recognise there is general concern everywhere, which I share, on this important matter. No Road Safety Bill for this Session was promised in the Gracious Speech, which said that Ministers were
attentively examining the Road Traffic Acts with a view to introducing further legislation to improve road safety and promote the orderly use of the roads.
Preparatory work on the Bill was somewhat delayed until I had received the Thesiger Committee's Report, but since then work has been actively pursued. Most Clauses in this lengthy Bill will deal with general traffic problems, but some important ones will be directed to improve road safety. But, as I have said before, the problem does not depend on legislation alone.

Mr. BIytou: Is the Minister aware that there has been an increase in the enormous number of road accidents, and that safety committees would prefer the Road Safety Bill to the Television Bill as it would save lives on the road?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Gentleman asked me a Question about the county of Durham. While I do not want to magnify what may be a temporary change in the figures, I am glad that there has been a reduction of road


accidents in the county of Durham, not only for March, but for the first three months of this year.

Mr. P. Williams: Would not the best thing the Minister could do to improve road safety in Durham be to enable better roads to be built there?

Highway Code (Pedestrians)

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the position under his regulations with regard to the use of the right-hand side of the carriageway by pedestrians, pedestrians leading horses, riders and riders leading horses, respectively; and what changes it is intended to make in this respect in connection with the issue of a new Highway Code, with a view to clarifying existing doubts on the subject.

Mr. Molson: There are no regulations on this subject. The Highway Code advises pedestrians, where there is no footpath, to walk on the right. Anyone leading an animal is advised to keep it to the edge of the road and to place himself between it and the traffic. The new Code will repeat this advice.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the draft of the Highway Code recently circulated pedestrians were told to keep to the right but to move over to the left when approaching a right-hand bend; that marching bodies were told to keep to the left; that people riding on animals and leading other animals were told to keep to the left; that pedestrians leading animals were told to keep to the right, whilst the legal profession interprets the whole thing as meaning that everyone must keep to the left? Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that this diversity of opinion as to who should go to the right and who should go to the left is not due to any political wrangling amongst the members of his staff?

Mr. Molson: The new version of the Code advises pedestrians that where there is no footpath they should walk on the right of the road so as to face oncoming traffic.

Mr. Isaacs: Will the Minister consider including in the Code, which I think is an improvement on the old Code—some advice as to who has the right of way

on converging roads—advice not only to motorists, but to magistrates who have to deal with many cases where there is an argument as to whether the man coming from the right or from the left has to give way? In view of the experience in other countries, will he look at this?

Mr. Molson: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for that suggestion. We shall certainly give it careful consideration. It illustrates how useful it was that my right hon. Friend made copies of this new version of the Highway Code available to hon. Members. We should welcome any constructive suggestions from any quarter.

Clyde Tunnel

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation how long he estimates it will take to bore the Clyde Tunnel using one shield and two shields, respectively.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I should prefer to have further details of the scheme from the promoters before attempting an estimate.

Mr. Rankin: Surely the Minister's technical advisers have some guidance to offer him on the respective merits of using one shield or two? If they have given no advice on the matter, how could the Secretary of State for Scotland inform the House yesterday afternoon that the tunnel would be started "very shortly."

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well—and he will certainly be reminded every weekend that he goes to his constituency—that the Government have given very high priority to this matter. It is now for the great local authority concerned to send me the details and the itemised estimates for which I have asked.

Old Shoreham Toll Bridge

Captain Kerby: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation why he is unwilling to receive a deputation from several West Sussex local authorities, to be led by the hon. Member for Arundel and Shoreham, who are anxious to lay before him, on behalf of the residents of West Sussex, the necessity of freeing the Old Shoreham Bridge from its present toll imposition.

Mr. Molson: We are already convinced of the desirability of abolishing these tolls, but we are not willing to postpone urgent road improvements in order to spend money on this. As I have already informed my hon. and gallant Friend, there is really nothing more that could be said to a deputation.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION

Heathfield Airfield, Ayr (Derelict Huts)

Sir T. Moore: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what progress has been made in removing the use less and derelict huts on Heathfield Airfield at Ayr.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. John Profumo): Since my Department took over responsibility for Heathfield aerodrome in February, a survey has been made of the existing buildings and arrangements have been made for the demolition of those which are derelict and can serve no useful purpose. Tenders have been invited for a contract to demolish these buildings, and to remove the materials, at an early date.

Sir T. Moore: As these huts have been an eyesore at this place for the last seven years, will my hon. Friend and his right hon. Friend go into their usual hustle in order to get rid of it?

Mr. Profumo: Yes, Sir; certainly. I hope these eyesores will be removed by mid-July.

Helicopters (London)

Air Commodore Harvey: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what restrictions are placed on military and naval helicopters operating from central London.

Mr. Profumo: The operation of military and naval helicopters is controlled by the appropriate Service authority.

Air Commodore Harvey: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a strong feeling in some quarters that the regulations are relaxed for military helicopters, and will he give an assurance that, if civilian operators can find landing places such as that from which the Chief of the Imperial General Staff operates in Chelsea, they will be allowed to do so?

Mr. Profumo: I am very glad that my hon. and gallant Friend has given me the opportunity of trying to clear up what 1 know to be a misconception. There is no reluctance on the part of my right hon. Friend to allow civilian helicopters to come into the centre of London, so long as they conform to the broad regulations, which provide that, in the event of an engine failure, a landing be made without risk to persons on the ground. Within these regulations, they have just as much latitude as Service helicopters, and the regulations, both Service and civilian, are broadly in line with each other.

Mr. Dodds: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that what is needed is a properly constructed helidrome somewhere on the banks of the Thames? When are we going to do something of that sort because until it is done there will be no suitable places for helicopters? What about Cannon Street Station, where very few people live.

Mr. Profumo: We will certainly have a look at that suggestion. The trouble is that people live everywhere whether the area includes a railway station or not. We cannot progress any further in the construction of an air-stop at the cost of a very large sum of money, until we know the qualities of the twin-engined helicopter. At present we do not know them. The Sikorsky machine is not yet flying with twin engines.

Mr. Rankin: Will the Minister keep in mind the tremendous noise which these machines make?

Mr. Profumo: Everything possible is being done to diminish noise.

Air Commodore Harvey: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that if a helicopter engine failed at 400 feet, after taking off on the Chelsea site, there would be risk of loss of life to the local inhabitants?

Mr. Profumo: I am afraid that that is a hypothetical question with me, because we have made no test on the Chelsea site which is a military site. I have reason to believe that if it was not a military site but a civil one it would broadly conform to the regulations laid down by my right hon. Friend.

Sikorsky S56 Helicopter

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation in view of


the progress being made in the production of a 30–40 seater helicopter, the Sikorsky S56, which can be built in this country, what action he is taking to ensure that we do not lag behind other countries in utilising this type of aircraft.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I understand that the Sikorsky S56 is not in production yet in the United States, and that four military prototypes, but no civil ones, have been built there. When more is known, I shall be able to consider with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply whether it would be in the interests of British operators for S56s. to be built under licence in this country.

Mr. Dodds: Does not the Minister appreciate that he must have some confidence in people? If he is going to wait until helicopters are actually made by other countries and are landing in this country we shall be in the humiliating position of having them flying into London.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It would help everybody if the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm were equalled by his knowledge of the facts. I welcome the enthusiasm, but he must not assume that there is not quite close contact between our manufacturers and manufacturers in the United States upon this and kindred matters.

Mr. Dodds: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that 10 days ago I was flying in helicopters and that I speak with as great a knowledge of them as he does.

Mr. Beswick: What representations have been made by either of the two Corporations about the possibility of using this particular helicopter?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The B.E.A. is, of course, very interested in the development of helicopters in general in the United Kingdom, but it understands perfectly the particular stage of development of the S56. I would not in the least regard it harmful to British helicopter development if, when we know all the facts, we gave a licence to produce a foreign helicopter in this country; but before we do that we must know all the facts.

Mr. Dodds: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Ground Services (Receipts and Expenditure)

Mr. Burden: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the total expenditure, to date, on the provision of ground services for United Kingdom civil aerodromes; and what have been the total receipts, to date, paid in respect of aircraft using these ground facilities.

Mr. Profumo: The total capital and recurrent expenditure, from Ministry of Civil Aviation Vote, from 1945 up to 31st March, 1954, on the provision of ground services for United Kingdom civil aerodromes is approximately £68 million. Total receipts to 31st March, 1954, paid in respect of aircraft using these ground facilities is approximately £13 million.

Mr. Burden: While appreciating the need for capital expenditure on such projects, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend is aware of the necessity for ensuring an adequate return? How do the landing charges for civil aerodromes in this country compare with those of other countries?

Mr. Profumo: I could not answer offhand the last part of my hon. Friend's question. A great deal of the expenditure to which I have referred is revenue-producing. It will yield returns in the years to come.

Prestwick Airport (Passenger Feeder Services)

Sir T. Moore: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what arrangements exist at Prestwick Airport for providing air transport for passengers desirous of proceeding to other parts of Scotland, Northern England and Northern Ireland.

Mr. Profumo: Passengers who arrive at Prestwick with through tickets for other airports in Scotland, Belfast, Manchester or Newcastle-upon-Tyne may be conveyed, free of charge, by road to Renfrew where there are air services to these places. Direct air transport is not available between Prestwick Airport and the areas mentioned.

Sir T. Moore: While being deeply grateful for what my hon. Friend, my right hon. Friend, and his colleagues, have done for Prestwick, may I ask him1 to bear in mind that we cannot designate.


an airfield or an airport as "International" unless we provide it with a feeder service to collect and deliver passengers to and from their destination? Otherwise, it is only theory and not fact.

Mr. Profumo: I cannot accept what my hon. Friend says. The provision of a feeder air service into Prestwick would not create an additional demand for trans-Atlantic travel, nor is the absence of such a service likely to deter any trans-Atlantic traveller who wanted to use Prestwick.

Mr. Rankin: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that services of the nature suggested in the Question are provided adequately by Renfrew Airport?

Sir T. Moore: I am talking about Prestwick.

Passenger Service Charges

Captain Kerby: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he has yet abolished the passenger service charge of 5s. for each passenger leaving his Department's airports for overseas; and what new arrangements are now in force.

Mr. Profumo: I have nothing to add to the statement which my right hon. Friend made on 8th March.

Mr. P. Morris: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the public regard this charge as a real imposition which should be withdrawn without further delay?

Mr. Profumo: If the hon. Member reads the statement to which I have referred he will realise that the intention is to alleviate at the earliest possible date this great deterrent to air traffic.

KOREA (16-NATION DECLARATION)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the reasons which led to Great Britain agreeing to the recent declaration of 16 nations about peace in Korea.

The Minister of State (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): I know of no recent declaration. If the hon. and learned Member is referring to the Declaration signed on 7th August, 1953, I can only refer him to the reply given to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) on 26th October.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister of State realise that, whatever were the reasons which actuated Britain on that occasion, they have not had the desired effect? Will he now tell the House what he is doing to bring about a settled peace?

Mr. Lloyd: I think that the purpose of the Declaration was to make quite certain that there should not be a resumption of hostilities in Korea, and that certainly has not happened.

CANAL ZONE (BRITISH FORCES)

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Anglo-Egyptian negotiations on the evacuation of British forces from the Canal Zone are still proceeding; and to what extent any of our troops are being withdrawn.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The answer to the first part of the Question is "No, Sir." The answer to the second part of the Question is "None."

Mr. Shinwell: Does that answer mean that no representations are being made at the present time by either side for a resumption of negotiations? Is it not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to make such representations at an early date?

Mr. Lloyd: I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said on 22nd March, which, I think, made the position perfectly clear.

Mr. Shinwell: The position was not made clear at all. The reply given to us by his right hon. Friend simply indicated a stalemate. I wish to know, as do many others, whether the Government— or the Egyptian Government—propose to resume negotiations.

Mr. Lloyd: What my right hon. Friend said on 22nd March was that conditions of confidence had to be created before negotiations could be properly embarked upon. In addition, there has been a good deal of change and shift of power during the past few weeks, and perhaps it is just as well to see how things settle down.

U.N. DISARMAMENT COMMISSION (ATOMIC WEAPONS)

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether President Eisenhower's proposal for the establishment of an international atomic agency is one of the subjects to be discussed by the sub-committee of the United Nations Disarmament Commission which is to meet this week.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: As my right hon. Friend informed the House of 5th April, President Eisenhower's proposal is being discussed at present through diplomatic channels. But it is certainly a matter of which account must be taken in the forthcoming talks.

Mr. Henderson: In view of the terms of the Resolution passed by the General Assembly in November last, can the Minister say whether the conversations will cover the whole field of disarmament, both conventional and unconventional, including atomic and hydrogen weapons?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, Sir. It is certainly the case that the discussions will cover the whole of die field.

Mr. Henderson: Is the Minister aware that he has the good wishes of both sides of the House in entering these conversations, and that we hope sincerely that an agreement will be reached on these matters which are vital to the future welfare of the world?

Mr. Lloyd: I am very grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

CYPRUS (GREEK REPRESENTATIONS)

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps he proposes to take about the desire of the Greek Government and of the majority of the people of Cyprus for the union of Cyprus with Greece.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: As has repeatedly been made clear in answers to Questions, Her Majesty's Government are not prepared to discuss the status of Cyprus with the Greek Government.

Mr. Mallalieu: Does the reply of the right hon. and learned Gentleman mean that in spite of the fact that 80 per cent.

of the population of Cyprus is Greek and wishes to go to Greece, and that we derive no military or economic advantage from a dog-in-the-manger attitude, Her Majesty's Government are going to sit on their ample backside until there is violence in Cyprus or until N.A.T.O. is shaken by quarrels with our old friends the Greeks?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not accept any of the hon. and learned Gentleman's suggestions. We cannot agree that any foreign Government, however friendly, can assume the right to be consulted about the future status of one of Her Majesty's present possessions.

Sir H. Williams: Can my right hon. and learned Friend say when Cyprus was last part of Greece?

Mr. Lloyd: Certainly not in the last 400 years.

Mr. Follick: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that on no account should any decision be made on taking Cyprus out of the British Commonwealth and Empire without a fair and honest opinion being taken in Cyprus itself?

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: Is my right hon. and learned Friend certain that those who shout loudest for Enosis in Cyprus realise that it would mean their transfer from the sterling area, the loss of their British passports, and liability to call-up to the Greek armed forces?

INDO-CHINA (EVACUATION OF WOUNDED)

Mr. Walker-Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fall of Dien Bien Phu, he has made, or will make, representations at Geneva as to the desirability of prompt and satisfactory arrangements in respect of wounded and prisoners and of the alleviation of suffering generally, both in the interests of humanity and of the creation of a climate favourable to the re-establishment of peace in Indo-China.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: As my hon. Friend will, no doubt, have seen from today's Press, arrangements are now being discussed for the evacuation of the seriously wounded from Dien Bien Phu. My right


hon. Friend has done what he can to initiate and support proposals designed to alleviate the sufferings of the sick, wounded and prisoners.

BRITISH HONDURAS (GIFTS)

Mr. T. Reid: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the total amount of grants in aid and special gifts given by the British taxpayers to British Honduras since 1931.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Oliver Lyttelton): The total sum is £3,675,344, comprising the following items:



£


Grants in aid
1,122,165


Colonial Development and Welfare schemes
2,382,896


Hurricane, 1931. Remission of outstanding loan
106,388


Loss on currency revaluation, 1950
63,895



£3,675,344

Mr. Reid: In view of this enormous generosity on the part of the British taxpayer to 75,000 people, seeing that we have about 90 million in our Dependencies, may I ask if the right hon. Gentleman has any hope that these people will give up the will o' the wisp of Communism and co-operate with the Government in improving their prospects?

Mr. Lyttelton: I do not think the hon. Gentleman is correct in attributing the present situation in British Honduras to Communism. While I breath, I still hope.

MALAYA LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL (ELECTED MEMBERS)

Mr. Awbery: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what answer has been given to the United Malay National Party and the Malay Chinese Association to their request for a majority of elected representatives on the Malayan Legislative Assembly at the forthcoming election.

Mr. Lyttelton: I am not sure to which request the hon. Gentleman is referring, but the elected members of the new

Legislative Council are to be in a majority of six.

Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that the deputation which is here from Malaya dealing with this problem is now acting in a constitutional way? Will the right hon. Gentleman deal as generously as he can with it, for an ounce of generosity and understanding now will save us tons of trouble later on? Is the Minister aware that according to the recent Report on Singapore, the Rendal Committee recommends 75 per cent, elected, and now he is offering a majority of only six in the Federation? Will the right hon. Gentleman review the matter in the light of the Report on Singapore?

Mr. Lyttelton: The Singapore matter has no particular relevance to this Question. The majority of those reporting on the Federal elections in the Federation did not recommend an elected majority. That is the only major recommendation of the Report which has not been adopted. We have now got an elected majority of six.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Does the Secretary of State propose to receive the deputation which I understand represents the major organisations of the various communities in Malaya and desires to discuss with him and present to him its views of these proposals? Does he propose to meet these people and, after meeting them, will he make a further statement to the House?

Mr. Lyttelton: I am to see the deputation, but I understand that constitutional matters are not going to be raised.

Mr. Griffiths: Do I understand that if they desire to offer their comments to the right hon. Gentleman upon the proposals for constitutional advance, he will be ready to listen to them?

Mr. Lyttelton: I think we had better wait and see what happens.

Mr. Proctor: Is it a fact that the original demand of the parties referred to by my hon. Friend in his Question was for 60 per cent, elected representatives and 40 per cent, selected representatives? Since the right hon. Gentleman's decision is 52 elected and 46 selected, which means that there is only a narrow difference of seven, will he give some indication that on such a narrow point he will not allow these negotiations to break down?

Mr. Warbey: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into account the fact that these two organisations representing the two main communities in Malaya are both moderate in their demands and are highly representative, and that if he loses the opportunity of coming to an agreement with them he may find it difficult to achieve any reasonable political settlement in Malaya at all?

Mr. Lyttelton: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says. I think we had better wait and see what happens.

SINGAPORE (UNEMPLOYMENT)

Mr. Awbery: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware of the increasing number of unemployed in Singapore; what steps have been taken to create an unemployment fund; what system of public works has been prepared to absorb the unemployed; and what was the nature of the reply given to the Singapore Trade Union Council when they approached the Governor on this matter.

Mr. Lyttelton: Figures of the number of unemployed in Singapore are not available, but there is no evidence that unemployment is widespread. The existing system of relief is considered adequate to deal with the present situation. I have asked the Governor for further information and will write to the hon. Member when I have it.

Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that the number of unemployed in Singapore is increasing considerably? Is he also aware that unemployment breeds discontent and that unemployment without assistance breeds Communism? Will the right hon. Gentleman give all the assistance he can to establish public works, because schools and clinics are needed there?

Mr. Lyttelton: I have already addressed a message to the Governor on the use of public works for relief of unemployment. As I have said, I will write to the hon. Member when I get a reply.

KENYA (ANTI-MAU MAU OPERATIONS)

Mr. Fenner Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a further statement on the situation in Kenya.

Mr. Lyttelton: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply my right Hon. Friend gave on 28th April to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Sorensen). The main Nairobi operation has now been completed; some 30,000 persons were picked up for examination, of which about 19,000 have been detained for further screening. In addition, 4,500 have been detained on individual detention orders. 9,200 dependent women and children have been repatriated to the reserves.
The operation has been most successful. Hooliganism in the city has ceased, and the boycotts enforced by the terrorists on buses, beer and tobacco have been broken. There has been a spectacular reduction in crime, particularly violent crime, and the law-abiding African population has been heartened and reassured.

Mr. Brockway: May I express the hope that the right hon. Gentleman has fully recovered from the accident which he had in East Africa? In regard to the situation in Kenya, and the unfortunate circumstances in which the negotiations for peace broke down, may I ask him whether the Government are keeping their minds very actively on the question of any further steps which may be taken to end the fighting there?

Mr. Lyttelton: Yes, Sir. I think the Government of Kenya have done all they can to induce surrenders, and I do not think that they were very fortunate in regard to this incident. It was a very unlucky matter.

Mr. Stokes: May I ask the Minister whether any steps have been taken to intensify the loud-speaker appeal from the forests to get those people who were about to surrender on 10th April to understand what really happened on 7th April, and to let them know that they can still surrender under the usual guarantees?

Mr. Lyttelton: Yes, Sir. We have intensified loud-speaker appeals from aeroplanes since then, and the terms upon which terrorists can surrender have been very widely spread. We can only hope for the best.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Will the Secretary of State consider the desirability of ceasing to send so many Africans back to the reserves? Is not there a very great danger


that the reserves will become overcrowded? Whereas we all welcome the improved situation in Nairobi, there is a danger that the situation in the reserves will again become worse. Will the Minister call for a report whether the time has not come to stop sending large masses of Africans back to the reserves, which are already grossly overcrowded?

Mr. Lyttelton: That is one of the difficult parts of the problem. If we clear out some of the population from Nairobi we tend to increase the difficulties in the reserves. But I think the problem will have to be dealt with by measures in the reserves, rather than by other forms of action.

Mr. Griffiths: Will the Minister take an early opportunity to tell us what steps are taken, since the information we have is that the overcrowding of the reserves is assuming rather alarming proportions?

Mr. Lyttelton: We have instituted a much closer administration in the reserves. The other outlet will be in bringing into cultivation some of the bracken areas, and so forth. The right hon. Gentleman is quite right in pointing out that this is one of the difficulties with which we have to contend.

COMET AIRCRAFT ACCIDENTS (INQUIRIES)

The Attorney-General (Sir Lionel Heald): Mr. Speaker, with your permission and that of the House, I should like to make a short statement about the public inquiries which it is proposed to hold into the causes of the two recent Comet disasters off the Italian coast. Her Majesty's Government are anxious that these inquiries should be held as soon as possible. I cannot, however, at this stage indicate the date on which they are likely to begin. Salvage operations are still going on and the examination of the wreckage and the collection and sifting of evidence will necessarily take some considerable time. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation has already informed the House of the exhaustive technical investigation which is being carried out under the co-ordinating authority of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply.
The preparation of the case has been remitted to me under the Civil Aviation (Investigation of Accidents) Regulations, 1951, but the appointment of a Commissioner and Assessors to inquire into such matters lies with the Lord Chancellor of the day, and I think it right to inform the House now that, in view of the great importance of these inquiries, my noble and learned Friend has come to the conclusion that they should be presided over by a Lord of Appeal, and that the same court should inquire into both cases. He has accordingly asked the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cohen, to preside over the court which will conduct the inquiries into both accidents, and the House will, I know, be glad to hear that he has accepted.
The Italian Government, whose assistance has been invaluable in both the Comet accidents, have appointed two Accredited Representatives, Colonel R. Miniero and Signor R. Roveri, to be present at both inquiries.
The South African Government have appointed Lieut.-Colonel L. E. Lang and Major J. J. Granzier as Accredited Representatives at the inquiry into the Naples accident.
The names of the Assessors will be announced later.

Mr. Beswick: Whilst expressing what I am sure will be the general opinion of the House—that the inquiries under Lord Cohen will command great confidence— and whilst appreciating that the extraordinarily complex technical investigations which have to be completed will necessarily take some time, I should like to ask the Attorney-General, if he will give his personal assurance that, as far as the preparations for and the administration of the inquiries is concerned, not a single day will be unnecessarily lost because of the quite exceptional importance of these inquiries.

The Attorney-General: I can certainly give the House that assurance. At the same time, I am sure the House would think it desirable that every possible step should be taken to ensure that the best available information on all technical matters should be before the inquiries.

Air Commodore Harvey: Can my right hon. and learned Friend give an assurance that he will not hesitate to call upon


the brains and knowledge of the whole aircraft industry in the meantime to give their assistance if it is available?

The Attorney-General: Yes, certainly. No useful information or assistance will be neglected.

Sir W. Smithers: Will my right hon. and learned Friend take steps to ensure that at the inquiries careful investigation will be made to see whether or not there was any evidence of sabotage?

The Attorney-General: Every possible cause of the accidents will be thoroughly investigated.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS

ATOMIC WEAPONS (INTERNATIONAL CONTROL)

Sir C. Taylor: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 28th May, I shall call attention to certain agreements covering the control of atomic weapons, and move a Resolution.

TECHNICAL EDUCATION

G. M. Thomson: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 28th May. I shall call attention to the need for the maintenance and expansion of the technical education service, and move a Resolution.

ROAD DEVELOPMENT AND IMPROVEMENT

H. Nicholls: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 28th May, I shall call attention to the need for road development and improvement in the interests of road safety and industrial efficiency, and move a Resolution.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Crookshank.]

Orders of the Day — TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.39 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Commander T. D. Galbraith): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill is the second and final instalment of legislation to give effect to the proposals for amending the financial provisions of the 1947 Act which were announced in the White Paper which the Government laid before Parliament in November, 1952. It may well be that hon. Members are familiar with those proposals; nevertheless, it may be helpful if I state briefly what they were and the extent to which they have hitherto been dealt with.
The White Paper was concerned mainly with three things. The first was to abolish development charge and to remove the obligation on the Government to pay out the £300 million fund compensation in respect of the claims for loss of development value arising out of the provisions of the 1947 Act. The second was the substitution for payment out of the £300 million fund of a new system of compensation to be based on the claims that have been established against that fund. In future, compensation for loss of development value will be payable only when planning permission is refused, when development is restricted or when land is compulsorily acquired. The third aim was to pay compensation to holders of established claims, within the limit of those claims, where loss has been suffered as a result of the 1947 Act, that is, through their having paid development charge or having sold the land at less than its full value, or where the land was brought under planning restrictions.
Effect has been given to the first of these three things by the Act that we passed last year, a United Kingdom Measure which came into law on 20th May last. With the passing of that Act, we said good-bye to development charge and were relieved of the payment of some £300 million with interest to owners many of whom had no intention of ever developing their land.
This Bill deals with other proposals in the White Paper, but before I deal with the Bill, I should like to say how very much my right hon. Friend regrets that the Bill is as complex as it is. I can assure the House that if he could have found means of making it simpler he would have done so, because that would have been for the benefit of all of us here, but unfortunately it was not found to be possible.
I want to make it clear that the Bill is strictly a financial Measure. It neither alters nor amends the provisions of the 1947 Act which deal with day-to-day planning control, development plans, or acquisition and disposal of land for planning purposes. I hope the House will not take that to mean that those provisions are perfect, because experience has shown that amendments would be desirable, but if we were to deal with them in this Bill it would lead to most hopeless confusion. Therefore, my right hon. Friend decided to defer them to another occasion.
Under the Bill, development value is not generally recognised for purposes of compensation for public acquisition or where loss has been suffered due to planning restrictions, unless a claim has been established against the £300 million fund under the 1947 Act. It has been suggested in certain quarters that those conditions will result in hardship. I can see no reason to believe that is likely. There is, so far as I can discover, no evidence to show that large numbers of claims could have been made under the 1947 Act that were not, for one reason or another, made. The House will remember that very wide publicity was given to the rights of owners to make claims. Large numbers of claims were made in Scotland, and only a fraction of them threw up development value. In these circumstances, I want to make it clear that I can hold out no hope of the door being opened to fresh claims.
One of the main criticisms of the Bill has been that there is no provision for collecting for the benefit of the State betterment accruing from community activities. The Government are satisfied that the scheme they are putting forward in the Bill can be operated economically and to the national and public advantage without any such provision. After

all, development charge was a most ingenious scheme for collecting betterment, but our experience has shown that the system was anything but happy in practice, and in consequence the Government have deliberately decided to leave betterment alone.
Now I propose to give as well as I can, an explanation of the main provisions of the Bill. I want first to take Parts I and V together, because they deal with the past. The purpose of Part I is to bring those who are affected by the operation of the financial provisions of the 1947 Act into line with those who are not, so that they can start afresh on the same footing—that is, as far as that is possible.
The main types of cases for which something requires to be done have been grouped in Clauses 4 to 9 as Cases A to D. These are cases where either financial loss has been suffered as the result of the operation of the financial provisions of the 1947 Act or would be suffered following their repeal if special provisions were not made. The White Paper explained that the Government's proposal was to use the established claims as the basis of payments for such losses.
Case A is that in which the development charge has been incurred by the claim holder, and it provides that the charge shall be repaid up to the amount of the established claim or to the charge if that is less. Case B is that where land has changed hands either on public acquisition or privately at a price wholly or partly excluding development value. It provides that the claim holder who has parted with his land in such circumstances shall be paid the amount by which the sum he received fell short of the existing use value plus the value of the claim.
There are other types of cases which are merely variations of Case B, and so the Bill empowers the Central Land Board to make payments in cases of that sort; hon. Members will have seen that Clauses 10 and 12 deal with provisions for payments to be made in several other types of case, including that where a person has acquired the land, but not the claim, at a price in excess of existing use value, and has paid development charge, or has had land acquired from him by a public authority.
Cases C and D are special cases where the claim has become separated from the land either as a result of land being gifted or of the claim having been sold apart from the land. I am glad to say that, so far as we know, there are not many of these cases in Scotland.
Payments under Part I will be determined and paid by the Central Land Board on an application being made to it, and there are provisions in Clause 14 for any disputes either as to the amount or destination of the claim to be referred to arbitration. Payments under Part I carry interest at the rate of 3½ per cent, as from 1st July, 1948, until the date of payment or until 30th June, 1955, whichever is earlier, and that, hon. Members will remember, is in keeping with the promise made in the White Paper and also with the 1947 Act.
The financial principles for dealing with cases under Part V—these are cases where restrictions have been imposed in the past—will be the same as those which are applicable to future cases, which are dealt with in Parts II and IV, and I shall speak of them in a moment or two. Part V payments, it should be observed, being planning compensation payments, are payable by the Secretary of State and carry interest calculated in the same way as in Part I.
Part II deals with payments to be made in respect of future planning restrictions. Under the 1947 Act claims were a kind of personal property which could be bought or sold apart from the land. That separation of the claim from the land is no longer to be possible. Claims in the future will attach to the land and will enure for the benefit of anyone who for the time being is interested in the land, whether or not he was ever a claim-holder.
What we have now is a measure of development values which sets a ceiling for compensation when the land is affected by an act or an event which, under this Bill, is an occasion for compensation, and the term—I am sorry to inflict this on the House—the "unexpended balance of established development value" is given to the new measure of compensation. Let me explain what it is. It is what is left of the development value represented by the established claims after all payments previously due have been made.

Mr. Thomas Hubbard: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman explain that?

Commander Galbraith: I could explain it, but I do not know that I could explain it any more clearly than I have already done.
To the unexpended balance there has to be added, for the purpose of Part II, a supplement of one-seventh, which is approximately interest at 3½ per cent, for seven years, less Income Tax. I want to impress on the House, if I may, that that compensation will be paid from State funds, and local planning authorities will thus retain the freedom which they enjoyed under the 1947 Act to plan without fear of having to foot the bill. The power which is given to the Secretary of State to review decisions of the planning authorities in compensation cases gave rise to fears, which were expressed during the Second Reading of the 1953 Act, that planning would be thwarted because the Treasury would be reluctant to pay compensation. In that connection, I should like to repeat to the House the pledge which was given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government when he made his Second Reading speech on the English Bill. There is no intention
that decisions about the right use of land should be governed by the cost of compensation."—(OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th March, 1954: Vol. 525, c. 49.]
My right hon. Friend has no intention of using his review powers to scrutinise closely, from the financial point of view, decisions of planning authorities which give rise to compensation claims.
There is, of course, no doubt at all that there will be cases—there have been in the past—where the Secretary of State will not agree, or has not agreed, with the decisions of the planning authority, but there will not be many such cases where the merits have not already been examined by the Secretary of State as planning Minister on appeal—that is, before there is any application to him for compensation. I think it is an earnest of the Government's intention that it is laid down in Clause 66 (10) that the Government are prepared to find £2 million for compensation payments in Scotland within a period of five years.
The White Paper foreshadowed that compensation was to be excluded for


planning restrictions imposed in the interests of good neighbourliness, and it cited the 1932 Act as a precedent for that. The Clause in this Bill—Clause 23— follows that Act closely, and I do not think anyone could possibly challenge the proposed code which is laid down as being harsh. Certainly since the publication of the Bill there has been no violent criticism, and the planning authorities consider that it is rational and workable.
Clause 24 is complementary to Clause 23. The principle underlying Clause 24 is simply this, that a landowner must be content with some profitable development of his land and will not necessarily be compensated for not being able to carry out the most profitable development.
Part III of the Bill is probably one of the most important parts because it regulates the future price to be paid by public authorities for the acquisition of land, and it falls to be read with Part IV of the 1947 Act, which it amends and which laid down that the price which public authorities would pay for land was to be the existing use value. Part III supplements that by prescribing the extent to which there is to be compensation for development value in land. It is, as indicated in the White Paper, an integral part of the Government's solution that the unexpended balance of established development value must represent the upper limit for such compensation, and it is provided in Clause 36 that, in addition to the existing use value at the time of the purchase, the price is to include any unexpended balance plus the one-seventh supplement for interest.
The provisions of Part III have been criticised as being likely to increase the cost of land to the local authorities. That was examined, at the request of the local authority associations, by a working party which was composed of representatives of the local authority associations, officers of the Department of Health, and representatives of the Central Land Board and the Valuation Office. That working party had samples submitted to it by the authorities, and the results of its inquiries showed that in general the local authorities would benefit under the new proposals.

Mr. John Rankin: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman does not mean to suggest, does he,

that local authorities are satisfied about the Bill in general?

Commander Galbraith: The local authorities have expressed great satisfaction about a great many parts of the Bill, as the hon. Member will learn as I proceed with my speech. In fact, I have never known the local authorities to be so satisfied with so many parts of a Bill in which I was interested.

Mr. Rankin: rose—

Commander Galbraith: Unless the hon. Member wants to put a serious point, he had better allow me to continue, in case I lose the thread.

Mr. Rankin: I should not have been on my feet had that not been the case. Did Glasgow, in particular, inform him that it regarded the Bill as unworkable?

Commander Galbraith: I hope not, and I hope they will find it very much to their liking. In fact, I have had expressions of opinion from authorities in Glasgow, connected with the Corporation of that City, who are delighted with certain proposals in the Bill.
There are safeguards in the Bill for dealing with cases where, on the strength of a planning permission, an owner has made a start to improvements, or a person-has bought land for development at the ordinary market price, and before he has been able to develop the land it has been compulsorily acquired.
Before leaving Part III, I want to explain in more detail the reasons for Clause 42 on which, I am sorry to say, I have learned that there has been considerable misconception. Indeed, my right hon. Friend is somewhat grieved that his good intentions have been so sadly misconstrued. The purpose of the Clause is to remove the formula in the present Housing Act which, whatever its merits may have been when it was first introduced, is now obsolete and inequitable.
What Clause 42 does is to say that unfit houses shall no longer be valued as cleared sites available for redevelopment but shall be valued on the same basis as ordinary properties—that is, on the state which they are in at the time at which they are purchased. Under the formula which we are repealing, owners stood to gain something which the open market would never have allowed—that


is, relief from the cost of demolition, since the formula required the unreal assumption to be made that this had already been carried out. Perhaps if I may give a short example to the House it will show more clearly what Clause 42 does.
Let us suppose that a site was valued at £300 cleared but there was a building on it, the cost of the demolition of which would be £200. Under the old formula, the local authority would have had to pay to the owner of the land £300 and then would have had to demolish the building at a further cost of £200. So the total outlay on the part of the local authority would have been £500. Under the new provisions of this Bill, the local authority will pay to the landlord the difference between the site value of £300 and the cost of the demolition of the building, which was £200; that is to say, it will pay £100. Instead, therefore, of the total outlay of the local authority being £500, it is £300, £100 of which is paid to the landlord and the other £200 being the cost of clearing the site.

Mr. A. Woodburn: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman seems to assume that the valuer would place no value on the building standing on that ground. Are we to take it as right that the building will not be valued at anything at all?

Commander Galbraith: That depends on whether there is any value in the building or not; there may well be value in the building. The whole point is this: where there is a miserable old building, the cost of demolition will fall on the owner and not on the local authority acquiring it.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: We are concerned about this Clause because of its application to the earlier Clauses of the Housing (Repairs and Rents) (Scotland) Bill which is at present before Parliament. That Bill provides for the local authorities taking over unfit houses. Am I right in assuming that it is the intention of the Government, in this Clause, that the local authority in taking over a tenement block for which it would pay £300, would then find itself involved in another £200 expenditure on demolition, and that the valuer, in placing a value on this property, would still say £300 and disregard entirely the prospect of the local authority patching

up these houses and keeping them in occupation for another 15 years? Is it not very likely, unless safeguarding words are put into the Clause, that the valuer will feel obliged to recognise that these houses are to be occupied for another 10 or 15 years and pay compensation to the owner of the property accordingly?

Commander Galbraith: I do not think that there can be much value in a house of that nature when we think of the liabilities connected with it. The idea is that this should apply in the acquisition of property of the kind about which the hon. Gentleman has spoken.
It must be obvious that the principle of cleared site value, under the present legislation, is an obstacle to slum clearance, and its abolition by Clause 42 will be a boon to the local housing authorities, and particularly to the people of Scotland Who reside in the cities. I can tell the hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) that the local authority associations have warmly welcomed this provision.

Mr. Rankin: That is the first one.

Commander Galbraith: There will be more to follow. Part IV of the Bill deals with the revocation or modification of planning permission after the Bill comes into operation. That is something for the future. Again, we anticipate that those oases will be very rare in Scotland. In fact, on making inquiries today, I ascertained that in the last seven years there have been only two such cases in Scotland, although another may be on the way.
This Part of the Bill provides that compensation which will be payable by a local planning authority in such cases is to include compensation for loss of development value. Where there is an unexpended balance attached to the land, the Secretary of State may give the local planning authority a contribution towards the compensation it has paid. That compensation will be equal to the amount of the compensation which he would have paid had the restriction resulting from the revocation been imposed by the authority in the first place.
I was speaking earlier about Part V of the Bill which relates to something that has happened in the past. I would say in relation to Part V, in reference to past


revocations and modifications of planning permissions that the provisions are on the same lines as those which I have already described in Part IV.
There are provisions in Part VI of the Bill which call for considerable explanation. I should first like to say a word or two on Clause 64. We believe that Clause to contain a workable and equitable solution of the old problem of the compensation which is to be payable by a public authority on the redemption of feu-duties and other similar ground burdens. The problem here arises because the interests of superiors or of creditors in ground annuals cannot be acquired compulsorily by the ordinary process of serving a notice to treat.
The acquiring authority can, however, after it has acquired the feuar's interest and has taken a schedule title to the land under the Lands Clauses Act, 1845, require the superior to agree to the redemption of the right to receive the feu-duty or other ground burden. It is well known to hon. Members from Scotland that a superior's main security for his feu-duty is the building and land comprising the feu, and that the personal obligation on the feuar may be worth very little indeed.
In the case of slum property, the security of the building is more or less valueless. It is more of a liability than an asset to the feuar and something with which we would readily part if he could find a purchaser. On the open market, accordingly, the value of a feu-duty secured over a slum property would be little or nothing. When, however, a local authority acquires the property, its personal obligation to pay feu-duty becomes a gilt-edged asset to the superior, and that is because the local authority is a perpetual corporation with very substantial assets and it has acquired the land to hold for some specific statutory purpose. The superior can, therefore, urge—and I believe with success— that, despite the conditions of the buildings on the feu, he is entitled to compensation based on the number of years purchase of the feu-duty which is appropriate to a perpetuity.
The solution that we propose in this Bill in effect prescribes rules to be observed by an arbiter when the question of redemption of feu-duty comes before

him. These rules mean that the superior will be treated along with his vassal within the compensation ceiling for the land under Part III of the Bill; that is to say, the compensation ceiling is the existing-use value plus any unexpended balance of established claim plus interest supplement. We are satisfied that this proposed solution is equitable, and I can again tell the hon. Member for Tradeston that it is warmly welcomed by the local authority associations.

Mr. Rankin: That is the second.

Mr. Woodbunr: Has the right hon. and gallant Gentleman worked out an example which he can give us by way of illustration?

Commander Galbraith: I have not worked out an example, but I think that the position is clear. The sum of money which has to satisfy all the claims in respect of the land is that sum which is represented by the existing-use value plus any unexpended balance of established claim on the £300 million plus the interest supplement, which represents 3½ per cent, for seven years less Income Tax. That is the very highest to which they can go. It seems to me that this is again a great boon to the local authorities which are dealing with these matters. Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman that, as I am sure he knows, this problem has been one of the terrific troubles of local authorities in trying to redevelop their areas.
Another important Clause is Clause 68, which deals with feued land where planning permission has been refused. I will give an example. There may be a case where planning permission has been refused for the erection of a bungalow on feued land because the land is to form part of a green belt. Thereupon, compensation would be payable to the feuar under Part II of the Bill. But the feuar under contract with the superior would have to continue to pay his feu-duty although he cannot develop the land.
On the other hand, the superior, while he was entitled to receive the feu duty, would not have any security for it other than the personal obligation of the feuar. That matter can generally be adjusted if the compensation can be diverted from the feuar to the superior and the feu duty proportionately scaled down. Here we are following closely the precedent set by Section 55 (4, b) of the 1947 Act.
Clauses 55 and 56 provide for a new scheme of Exchequer grants. The details of these will be contained in regulations, as they are at present. Broadly, we propose that a 50 per cent, grant should be substituted for the present graded system with all its complications. This change is also welcomed by the Scottish local authority associations.
Clause 57 provides that in certain cases the local authorities will have to refund either to the Central Land Board or to the Secretary of State compensation payments in respect of past and future transactions when the land is acquired by the local authorities. This may seem strange at first sight but it is absolutely fair, since in these cases the local authorities will have paid only the existing use value for the land and no development charge, or a reduced price because of the effect of planning restrictions, for which the Secretary of State will have had to pay compensation. In effect, the local authorities are being asked to reimburse the central authorities for payments they have made on their behalf.
Clause 59 applies the Bill to minerals. This is a very complicated matter indeed and is also to be dealt with in regulations, following the precedent of the 1947 Act. These regulations will require an affirmative Resolution.

Mr. A. C. Manuel: The hon. and gallant Gentleman mentioned that in acquiring land local authorities would pay the present use value. I have in mind certain local authorities which have been developing housing areas of their own. They have brought their housing right up to agricultural land and have taken over parts of farms. The adjacent farmland is needed for still further housing development. Would its use value be its agricultural use value for the crops at present being obtained off the land, or would its use value be recognised, because of the social services provided by the local authority, as a housing use value and, therefore, have a higher price?

Commander Galbraith: That is a question I should not like to answer. It is for the valuer to decide the present use value of the land. If services have been put into the land, I should have

thought that its present use value would be higher than its agricultural value. If, on the other hand, it is agricultural land, I should have thought its present use value would be the agricultural value. But that is a detailed matter, which the valuers must work out for themselves in each case,
I have tried, to the best of my ability, to explain the main provisions of this very complex Bill. Briefly, however, the Bill provides for a new system of compensation for loss of development value Ito take the place of that which was formerly provided in the 1947 Act. The Government's view is that this new system of compensation provides a reasonable solution to the compensation problem. If this new system of compensation is taken with the provisions of Clauses 42 and 64, which greatly facilitate slum clearance and redevelopment, and if those are taken in conjunction with the Housing Repairs and Rents Bill, which is at present before the House, and the Government's policy for new housing, I believe that we have a code which, if pursued with reason and vigour, should give us in Scotland better housing conditions than we have ever had before.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Johnston: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
this House declines to give a second reading to a Bill which throws the cost of compensation for loss of betterment in land values on the community and fails to safeguard the public interest by providing for the recovery of betterment created by public and industrial developments by leaving these to be appropriated as unearned increment by landowners; and which further militates against essential planning by local authorities.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State has very properly said that this is a complex Bill. Its complexity was pointed by the fact that he found it necessary to read most of his speech. I make no complaint about that. It is further pointed by the fact that there has been so much misunderstanding in local authority and planning circles as to the meaning of Clause 42.
Speaking for myself, and possibly for most Members of the House, I would say that this is probably the most complex Bill which the House has considered in recent years. I do not know how other hon. Members have approached it. I


approached it hopefully, by reading first the White Paper of 1952. That seemed to promise an interesting and not too difficult Bill. It was full of criticisms of the financial provisions of the 1947 Act, and it promised an easy solution.
It is clear from the fact that 18 months or almost two years have elapsed since the appearance of the White Paper, that the Government have found the solution much more difficult than they thought when the White Paper was presented. When one looks at the Financial and Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill, it is clear that the Bill is difficult. Having read the Explanatory Memorandum several times and failed to understand it, I hastened to the Bill itself in the hope that it would afford clarification. I am afraid, however, that it did not. I rapidly got bogged down with the 74 Clauses and 10 Schedules and came to the conclusion that it was a difficult Bill.
I suppose that most hon. Members became rapidly involved in the new vocabulary of claims—"established claim," "claim area," "claim holding," "area of a claim holding," "benefit of an established claim" and "value of a claim holding." I notice that the Joint Undersecretary apologised for one of these phrases. He should have apologised for all of them, because they are all complex and are all inter-related and difficult to follow. Trying to relate them is trying to understand a complex family tree that goes back for several generations and is not always legitimate.
My first complaint, therefore, is the complexity and difficulty of the Bill. I have found no one who even pretends to understand all its implications. I have read the various planning journals which are published, and from what I have seen it appears that none of those who specialise in planning pretends to do more than understand the general objects and outline of the Bill. They confess that they are quite unable to understand or apprehend all its implications.
It is most unfortunate that the House should be asked to contemplate, consider and pass into law a complex Bill like this at this late stage of the Session. We are now in the middle of May, and if the Bill goes to the Scottish Grand Committee it will be competing in time with our Estimates. This is not a Bill which can be

hurried or rushed through. I am glad that the Lord Advocate is present to hear me say that if, unfortunately, the House gives a Second Reading to the Bill, we will of necessity require his constant attendance during the Committee stage so that he may explain the Clauses. On reading the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Standing Committee on the English Bill, I notice that the Attorney-General has been unable to explain certain provisions of the first few Clauses. I hope that the Lord Advocate will do rather better.
Having made that preliminary, but nevertheless heartfelt, complaint about the intricacies and complexities of the Bill and the lateness of its introduction, I will deal with what I regard as fundamental objections to the Bill itself.
The first fundamental objection is that the Bill again marries the divorced partnership, compensation and planning. The House will remember that the 1932 Act provided that local authorities should have certain wide planning power, and then went on to provide that payment of compensation for loss resulting from the exercise of that planning power should be paid by the local authorities. The result was that there was no long-term planning and, indeed, very little short-term planning, because every time the local authority had to plan, it had to ascertain what the cost was. The result was that it simply did not plan. One can see the result of that by passing along any main road. One sees ribbon development, all the result of the failure of the 1932 Act. One sees what was once valuable agricultural land being consumed by housing, all the result of the 1932 Act.
The 1947 Act divorced planning from compensation. It provided a fund of £300 million out of which all compensation was to be paid for loss of development value, and it put upon the local authorities and the Secretary of State the power and the duty to plan, and they could plan without having to think of the day-to-day cost.
In the provisions of the Bill we have now gone back to what has been described by the Minister in the proceedings on the English Bill as "pay-as-you-go." The result will inevitably be this. The local authority will plan, and the plan will then be sent to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State will have to look at it with two separate eyes. He


will have to look at it in his capacity as a planner, but he will also have to look at it at the same time in his capacity as a payer. He will have to say to himself. "Can we afford at this time the compensation which will result from this planning?" Inevitably, however much he tries to avoid it—I have listened to the assurances of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman today—he will undoubtedly be influenced by the fact that as soon as he approves of a development plan and compensation becomes payable, he will have to pay. I have no doubt whatever that the result which was seen to flow from the 1932 Act will flow from this Bill as well.
It must be remembered that the Barlow Committee, the Uthwatt Committee and even the Coalition White Paper of 1944 recognised that if one married planning with compensation one got this result. The result will be short-term planning and short-term compensation— a saving for today and very heavy payments tomorrow. I notice that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman shakes his head, and I have no doubt that it is his intention that it should not be so, but there is nothing in the Bill to differentiate the position from that under the 1932 Act, except that -under the 1932 Act the local authority had to pay but here the Secretary of State has to pay. However, the Secretary of State has two capacities; he appears in the capacity of payer and in the capacity of compensator, as the local authority was in 1932. I fear—I am not alone in my fears; most of those who are interested in planning concur in it—that planning will virtually disappear except for short-term planning. That is my first objection.
My second objection is that, as a result of what is described by some persons as the "two-tier" compensation proposals which result from Part III of the Bill, the sum of the compensation will be uncertain and in future the tendency will be for it to rise. That will occur in this way. As the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has said, compensation on compulsory acquisition by a local authority is payable on existing use value and the benefit of the unexpired portion of the established claim. That is in the case of a local authority. A private speculator or other person who desires to develop land has to pay on market value.
There will be two objections to the two-tier system. The first objection will come from the owner of land. He will say that it is quite improper that, when land which he owns is compulsorily acquired, the local authority should pay him only the 1947 existing use value plus, while when he sells an adjoining piece of land to a private individual he is able to charge the full market value. On the other hand, the private individual will feel aggrieved because he has to pay for the adjoining piece of land at market value while the local authority is able to obtain its land at existing use value plus.

Commander Galbraith: This is very interesting. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman explain why the gentleman who can acquire the land at the market value should feel aggrieved because the local authority can get its land, for public purposes, at a lower price? I cannot see it. I do not follow the argument at all.

Mr. Johnston: It follows from human nature. There is nothing more irritating to a person than to discover that he has to pay more for the same thing than his next-door neighbour has.

Commander Galbraith: This is not in the sense of a next-door neighbour. It is not another person in the same class or situation. It is a public authority. It is something altogether different.

Mr. Johnston: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman may be able to convince Mr. A, who wishes to buy land in order to build a house, that he is in a different position from the public authority which is buying the adjoining plot, but my view is that, human nature being what it is, the private buyer, Mr. A, will complain most bitterly. The result will be an agitation, and the result of the agitation will be, not that the private individual will be able to acquire his land at the same price as the public authority, but that the public authority price will be forced up to something near the market value. That has happened in not dissimilar circumstances in the past.
We made provision in certain compensation Acts for compensation to be payable for war damage and things like that, and we provided that the compensation should be paid on the basis of 1939 values. Then people found that, after the


war, 1939 values were no longer comparable to the prices which they had to pay or which others were paying; so we were forced to amend that Act, and the basis came to be that of the 1946 or 1947 value. I am quite satisfied in my own mind that that will occur in this case, and I am not alone in that view, because it has been expressed by others.
In passing, may I say that I have a little difficulty in understanding how the Government can reconcile their repeated cry that they want a property-owning democracy with the fact that they are making it so difficult for democracy to own anything? To take the case of a private developer who wants to build his own house, he will now have to pay the market value of the land, whereas previously he might have acquired it at the lower existing-use price plus the development charge.
I turn now to my third objection, which is to the compensation proposals. Betterment, or rather development, is no longer a charge upon the landowner, and the result is that there is now no fund from which to compensate the Government— or the Crown, as it is properly—for the sum which they will have to pay out on development being resumed. I think we are all agreed that the value of land increases largely because of the efforts and growth of the community, and it has been recognised for a number of years that some attempt should be made by the community to obtain a return for that betterment which has been created. I will not trouble the House with the history of the various attempts which have been made, but the 1947 Act did make a courageous attempt to obtain that betterment. That has been thrown away.
I recognise that there was much criticism of the development charge, much of it, I think, manufactured, much of it arising from the fact that it was not properly understood or was regarded as a tax, and much of it arising from the fact that the compulsory acquisition powers were not exercised sufficiently. That arose from a decision of the courts which was not set right until a later repeal. The result of the repeal of that Act and of the present Bill will be that the community will be called upon to pay compensation for the betterment which it has itself created.
What creates the value of land is a community coming upon the land and building roads, providing drains and so on. The result of this Bill will be that the additional value of the land which has accrued because of the work of the community will have to be paid for by the community. The person who gets off scot-free is the landowner, and not only does he get off scot-free, but he is able to obtain an increased price for his land. I suggest that that is totally wrong and unjust.
There are many other reasons why this Bill should be condemned. I think that Parts I and V, with which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opened and which deal with compensation for the past, are difficult and will require, if this Bill receives a Second Reading, the closest scrutiny. But there is one part of the Bill which I can commend, and that is the Clause in which an attempt has been made to deal with the very difficult question of feu duty. While I would make certain criticisms of Clause 64, I think it is on the right lines; but Clause 68 will certainly require not only close scrutiny but a vast amount of amendment, because it opens the way to a great many purely fictitious and bogus claims. For these reasons, amongst others, I suggest to the House that this complex and somewhat absurd Bill should not be given a Second Reading today.

Mr. A. Woodburn: I beg to second the Amendment.

4.37 p.m.

Mr. C. N. Thornton-Kemsley: It is not, perhaps, surprising that there should be some hesitancy on the part of the back benchers on the other side of the House to second the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Johnston). They were half-hearted about it, but is it really to be wondered at, when the whole of the case made by the hon. and learned Gentleman, after spending a long time saying how complicated the Bill was, was that it failed to set up any scheme for the collection of betterment from individuals whose land was to be acquired or who were to be prevented from developing it in one way or another? That attitude is hardly worthy of a party which


claims to look forward, and it is quite outmoded by the present state of taxation.
Before I come to my main argument, may I first say a word or two on the point made by the hon. and learned Gentleman about compensation? First of all, the occasions on which compensation will be payable under this Measure will certainly not be numerous. Secondly, when that compensation is payable, it will not be paid on market value, but will be paid on a basis which will, in almost every case, be very much less than the normal market value of the land.
Thirdly—and this is really the important point—on the question of the community collecting betterment for work done by the community, I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman would not claim—I do not think anybody would now claim—that there ought to be a separate fund like the Road Fund into which the proceeds of the taxation of land in one form or another, or of the rating of land, ought to be paid, and out of which the State should recoup betterment and pay compensation for restrictions placed on the right to use land. That certainly was not proposed in 1947. There were no proposals then that the proceeds of development charge should be kept separate and that £300 million should be taken out of the sum which would accumulate in that way.

. Jean Mann: Did not the hon. Gentleman agree with the Uthwatt Report and did he not agree with the 1947 Act?

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I agreed with the planning provisions of the 1947 Act but not with the financial provisions, as I think the hon. Lady will remember. I shall have a word to say later about the Uthwatt Report.
With taxation as it is today, every form of land development, of changing the use of land and of securing the betterment of land, is taxed in a very direct way. In many cases the work that is put into the land by the developer, the planning and even the betterment that he may recoup from the work of the public, with development creeping up to the marches of his land and thus increasing its value, in due course comes back into the public coffers. Therefore, I invite the hon. and learned Member for Paisley to think about that point. I am certain that it is true.
I incurred the displeasure of some of my hon. Friends and of members of the hon. and learned Member's profession in Scotland when I asked the Prime Minister the other day whether it would not have been better if we had had one United Kingdom Measure instead of having two separate Town and Country Planning Bills, each of 73 or 74 Clauses and some 10 Schedules and each doing exactly the same thing. My request was rejected, understandably—

Mr. Johnston: I should have supported the hon. Member if he had made it a condition of his request that the Bill be drafted as a Scottish Measure with an English application Clause.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I spent some time trying to see how it could be done and I reckoned that by the addition of six Clauses dealing specifically with the Scottish position and with a rather longer interpretation Clause, we could have got two Bills into one. In that way we should have saved a great deal of time by not having two Standing Committees, with all the officials involved, sitting concurrently on the same problem. I should be the first to agree that where separate principles are involved we should have separate Scottish legislation, but here the principle is exactly the same.

Mr. Rankin: Robbing the community.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I shall speak about the principle in a moment. It might be said that we had two separate Bills in 1947 and therefore, since the main purpose of this legislation is to unscramble the financial provisions of the 1947 Act, it is right that we should have two separate Bills now in 1954. I remind the House, however, that in 1947 the two Committees did not sit concurrently. The English and Welsh Bill went through all its Committee stages in Standing Committee D, then there was a pause and the Scottish Bill went to the Scottish Grand Committee. The effect was that those of us on both sides of the House who were keen about planning had the opportunity of shaping legislation on the Committee stage of the English and Welsh Bill.
Now the English Committee is sitting already. Decisions are being made on these matters of principle, which I believe we shall find it impossible to upset in the Scottish Grand Committee because it will


be said, "This has been settled in the English Committee." I do not think that that is a good thing for the people whom we have been sent here to represent.

Mr. Thomas Steele: Is it not the case that with one Bill the Minister said in the English Committee that certain things could not be done, but on the Scottish Bill the Scottish Ministers said that the same things could be done, and as a result much better provisions were made for Scotland?

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Yes, but the Bill dealing with Scottish long leases, to which I believe the hon. Member is referring, contained matters of principle which were different, owing largely to the difference in the circumstances relating to feus in Scotland, and so on.
In general, I welcome the Bill and I know that I am speaking for a great many of my hon. Friends here.

Mr. James H. Hoy: Who are absent.

Dr. H. Morgan: The hon. Member for North Angus (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) should tell us how many of his hon. Friends are sitting around him.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I want to speak mainly about matters which I and many of my hon. Friends consider could be improved if the Bill were amended. The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland referred to the first point when he opened this debate and spoke of what has been called "good neighbourliness." I suppose that one of the fundamental problems of planning the right use of land is to decide the extent to which limitations may be placed upon land use without payment of compensation to those owners who are adversely affected.
The hon. Lady the Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) reminded me of the Uthwatt Committee. Mr. Justice Uthwatt's Committee, reporting in 1942, said—and I paraphrase the Report very roughly but I think accurately—that ownership of land does not carry an unqualified right of user and that the restrictions placed on what the Uthwatt Committee, for the first time, called "the duties of neighbourliness" may be imposed without liability

to pay compensation. The White Paper of November, 1952, which preceded the introduction of the 1953 Act, endorsed that policy.
I invite the attention of the House to Clause 23 of the Bill, which I submit imposes restrictions upon the use of land which go far beyond the duties of neighbourliness, whilst excluding compensation. I should like to give one or two examples of the kind of thing that I mean. First, as I read Clause 23, it will be possible to impose a density zoning upon land which, whilst preserving an outward semblance of an open space round an area, would make the economic development of that land impossible. Let us suppose that a planning authority desired to have a green belt round a new town. If the land is to be prevented from development altogether, compensation is payable, but if, relying on the restrictions in Clause 23, the planning authority said it would allow, say, one house to 10 acres, it would preserve the semblance of a green belt yet avoid the responsibility for having to pay compensation.
Another example is that restrictions upon the dimensions of buildings would make it possible for the planning authority in a built-up area to limit the ratio of floor area to site coverage so as to make the erection of commercial buildings on certain sites quite uneconomic. A third example is that a planning authority could impose conditions regarding the number of square feet in underground car parks in a large store or office building, requiring the provision of car parks far in excess of the need of those buildings, and requiring the developers to provide far more parking space than would ever be needed by the people making use of the buildings about to be erected. Conditions of that kind could be imposed without payment of compensation, if I read the Clause aright, and would make developments of that kind quite uneconomic.
I do not deny the reasonableness of the denial of compensation for restrictions imposed in the interests of good neighbourliness. What I think we must do in Committee is resist its application in some of the cases which at present are laid down in Clause 23. I could not help being slightly amused when my right hon. and gallant Friend the Joint Undersecretary claimed it as a virtue of


Clause 23 that no objections had been received from local authorities. Of course, local authorities will not object, as the Clause is in their favour. The toads under the harrow are landlords, who will have their rights denied them without payment of compensation. This is a matter which I am sure we shall need to look at closely in Committee.
I turn to Clause 24, dealing with comparable development. This is another Clause which my right hon. and gallant Friend expounded with great clarity. It seems to me that the Clause makes a most extraordinary provision. I shall exaggerate purposely to show how extraordinary and unfair I think it is. It provides that if a development is refused for one purpose, no compensation is payable if permission is given for development in another way. That is the principle. I will give two examples to show how absurd that can be.
The first example will be moderately sensible. Suppose that on the outskirts of a small market town there is a piece of land which at present is fanned. The farmer who owns it may be approached by an agricultural machinery company which, because of the position of the land on the main road, wants to set up a repair workshop, which would be noticed by people passing and widely used by farmers using the market town. The farmer applies for planning permission and is refused permission for a repair workshop, but no compensation is paid because it is said that he may sell the land for building houses. That may be all right, but he does not wish to sell for the purpose of building houses.
Let me take what I admit is an absurd example—but only by looking at absurd examples can we see what this Clause means. Supposing there is a quarry in the Highlands which is in use and stonemasons are working there. The company puts in plans and asks for planning permission to build a stonemasons' workshop at the edge of the quarry. Permission is refused, but the company is told the land can be used for the erection of a garage, a cinema, or something like that. That, in effect, is what the Clause says. There may not be the slightest demand for a garage or cinema there, but because the planning authority gives permission for some other use, it can refuse permission for the workshop.
We shall have to look at this Clause again because, through the almost incomprehensible nature of its drafting, it can mean two things. I have had arguments about Clause 24 with very learned solicitors, surveyors and others. Some have argued hotly that it means one thing and some have argued, equally hotly, that it means another thing. I am sure that we should not only change its drafting, but also change its intent.
I come back to the argument I advanced at the outset about cases in which compensation is paid. I think I have already shown that it will not be paid in very many cases and it will be at less than market value. The cases in which compensation will be payable under the Bill are, first, where land is compulsorily acquired and, secondly, where there is a refusal of planning permission, or where there is a grant of planning permission and subsequent revocation or modification.
As my right hon. and gallant Friend told us, compensation is to be, first, its existing use value, plus the interest supplement, plus the unexpended portion of the established development value. I need hardly remind the House that the development values, in terms of the 1947 Act, had to be assessed in relation to prices obtaining before 7th January, 1947. As the hon. and learned Member for Paisley made quite clear, these values, pegged back to dates in the past, become more and more unreal, more and more indefensible. As he rightly pointed out, it is not a good basis to go back far into the past and look at values in relation to a distant time. There are strong arguments against the perpetuation, for all time, of the basis of values as they were in 1947.
I have convinced myself that it is justified in the conditions of the Bill, first, because the basis is the existing use value of the land plus the unexpended portion of the development value and it is not all fixed in relation to 1947. Secondly, those values have already been fixed and agreed with district valuers and, administratively, it is very handy to be able to turn them up to see what they are. But if we are to do that and take a man's land from him against his will—acquire it compulsorily for some public purpose—we must be quite certain that if any part of the price is fixed in relation to prices obtaining in 1947 there shall be some automatic


adjustment so that the prices can be adjusted in accordance with the value of money.
Let me give some facts to explain what I mean. Putting the value of the £ in 1947 at 100, the internal purchasing power of the £ had fallen to 90 in 1949, it was 81 in 1951 and 76 in 1952. I urge upon my right hon. Friend that an authoritative body—I suggest that the Lord Chancellor might well be the chair man—should pronounce from time to time what is the internal purchasing power of the £ in relation to a figure of 100 at 1947, and that adjustment up or down—it may be down—

Dr. Morgan: That cannot be done in economics.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Certainly it can. It is done already. If the hon. Gentleman will go into the Library and look up the relevant Blue Books, he will find authoritative figures of the internal purchasing power of the £. I have those figures, and they are authoritative. What I want to see is an official commission making pronouncements in relation to the figure of 1947 so that there shall be no argument about the matter.

Mr. William Ross: The hon. Member says that it has been done. Is he trying to tell me that the Government already pay out postponed payments related back to original values? If so, I can appreciate his point very well. I should like to know whether the hon. Gentleman is limiting his proposal to what is now before the House or whether he is going to suggest the same thing about post-war credits?

Mr. Cyril Bence: Or Savings Certificates.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: It would be out of order for me to carry my suggestion as far outside the purposes of the Bill as that, but I do not make these suggestions without having thoroughly considered all their implications. However, I know that I should not be allowed to say how far I would go in the application of this principle.
So far as the Bill is concerned, I have most thoroughly considered all the implications of my suggestion, and I still stand firmly by the contention that it is

the only fair way of dealing with the matter. If the value of land is being fixed at its value in 1947, and if a man is to be paid in relation to 1947 prices for his land which is being taken, some adjustment should, when that occasion arises, be made up or down—it might be down —so that the coins in which he is paid bear the same relation to other things as they did at the time in relation to which the value was fixed.
I believe that if something like that could be done it would go some way to meet the objections, first, that owners whose land is compulsorily been taken from them are being paid at the moment at less than full market value; and secondly, that the value based on prices ruling in 1947 may be far from accurate 10, 20, 30, or even 40 years on. Without some such provision, I am certain that the 1947 prices provisions in the Bill will be found sooner or later to be unworkable. If that is to be the case, it is just as well that we should face that fact now.
I turn to the question of the reopening of claims. I say here and now that I was deeply disappointed—I go further, and say I was shocked—that my right hon. and gallant Friend should have said so emphatically that there is no hope of the door being opened for fresh claims. I will tell the House why I feel so unhappy about that. Claims under Part V of the 1947 Act will, in future, when this Bill is carried into law, entirely change their character. From being identified, as they have been hitherto, with the interests of some particular individual claimant, they will become part of the established basis of compensation enuring for the benefit of all persons interested at that time in the land concerned.
I submit that, in fairness, it must be desirable in these circumstances that all land which has a development value in terms of the 1947 Act should come within the ambit of the scheme and not be ruled out simply because the persons interested in the land at that time, that is to say, in 1947 or 1948, happened for one reason or another not to make a claim. I do not suggest that the reopening of all claims should be allowed because I fully realise that that would give rise to great administrative difficulties. I do say, however, that there are certain cases—just a few cases, one could say—


in respect of which reconsideration ought to be allowed. I do not say that that should be allowed at once, as that would involve all sorts of claims which will never have to be taken into consideration because the land will never be acquired. These cases should be reconsidered at the time when a claim falls to be made.
I will give just two examples. The first is a claim in respect of which there was more than one interest in the land and only one of those actually made a claim. In the case of a feu or lease with an unexpired term of, say, 30 years, the freeholder, the landowner, the superior, has made a claim in respect of his portion but the lessee has been negligent and failed to make a claim, although I admit he was repeatedly urged to do so by the then Chairman of the Central Land Board and the then Minister and Secretary of State. There was no excuse for him, but for one reason or other he failed to make a claim. Now that land enures not for the benefit of one individual but for all holders of the land; it runs with the land. I say that in that case the claim should be reopened so that some addition may be made in respect of that claim if it is felt to be justified to make up for the failure of an individual to make a claim at the time.
I turn to the second category. A great many cases were ruled out under the de minimis provisions of Section 60 of the 1947 Act. I do not suggest that all de minimis claims should be reopened. To allow that would give rise to great difficulty, certainly great administrative difficulty, but where someone who was ruled out under the de minimis provisions of Section 60 of the 1947 Act had subsequently to pay a development charge, in respect of which there were no such de minimis provisions, his case should certainly be looked at again. Impartial examination of such cases at the appropriate time would not open a very wide door and would underline the Government's intention to deal fairly with the many unforeseeable cases likely to arise in the process of unscrambling the 1947 financial provisions.
I have spoken for a long time, during which I have deliberately confined myself to three or four matters of principle. I hope it will not be thought, because of that, that we on this side of the House think that the Bill is bad; we do not. We think the Bill is good, but we should

like it to be better. It is inevitable, in the case of a Bill of the length and complexity of this one, that there should be differences of opinion about this or that Clause, even among friends. I am sure that the Committee stage of the Bill will be very important indeed. Because of the complexity of the Bill and because inevitably it will take private individuals, more than local authorities, a long time to absorb all its implications, I hope that we may have adequate time between this Second Reading debate and the Committee stage. I urge the Government to ensure that we shall have sufficient time to consider the Bill carefully before we discuss it in Committee.

5.10 p.m.

Mr. A. C. Manuel: I do not wish to follow the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) on all the points he has endeavoured to make. We can always look to him with confidence to put the case for Scottish land-owning interests in any debates on any Bill which is before the House. I was astonished at his remarks about Clause 23 of this Bill. We all agree that the local authority should be in charge of planning measures and realise that it is most necessary that the local authority should control nuisances which might he created very easily by reason of a private landlord, for a profit motive, hiring out a roadside site or destroying the amenities in a residential area by providing ground where an obnoxious trade could be carried on.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are ample powers of appeal to the Secretary of State if a private person is of opinion that a local authority is not treating him justly and I would plead with the hon. Member to leave well alone in that respect. I agree with that provision in the Bill.
I am concerned about the application of the provisions of the Bill to local authority development. The remarks of the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland about Clause 42 caused me some anxiety. From what he said one might think that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was referring only to unfit houses which were actually now uninhabited. I am referring to the cleared site value provisions. We know there are possibly hundreds of thousands of


houses in Scotland which are unfit for human habitation but which are presently inhabited. This Clause deals with these unfit houses and we know that under the provisions of the Housing (Repairs and Rents) Bill (Scotland), the local authorities will be required to submit schemes to the Secretary of State within 12 months, indicating the unfit properties which they will take over.
I should like a clear answer from the Government about the actual position. We were told by the Joint Under-Secretary of State that there would be an actual saving to the local authorities and that they would be protected from financial loss arising from demolition costs in connection with these unfit buildings which they had acquired. But the Government know very well that under Clause 1 of the Repairs and Rents Bill the majority of these houses will need to be patched up and kept in being for another 15 years.
We know that the period of 15 years is quite unreal and that many of these houses will be inhabited for far longer than that. In Glasgow, there are about 90,000 of these houses and after the next 15 years many of them will still be occupied. Under this new Bill the local authorities are being asked to acquire these unfit properties. The district valuer will put a price on the dwellings.
Although these houses will be occupied for the next 15 years; although a rent is being paid for them at present and will be continued to be paid for the next 15 years—because the houses are being patched up—the district valuer will take no cognisance at all of the amount of rent paid over the next 15 years whether it is paid to the local authority or to the private landlord. He will assess the building merely as being in a bad state and as being worth practically nothing. The main commitment of the local authority will arise from the capitalising and buying out of any ground burden.
I am concerned that local authorities are dubious about the provisions of the Bill regarding the acquiring of land for future development. We were told that the local authority would pay existing use value. I should like the Lord Advocate to explain what that means so far as the price medium is concerned. By reason of their housing activities local authorities have extended their roads,

sewers, water mains, electricity services, and street lighting around the verges of their townships. They have done so by taking over agricultural land which, until 1947, they acquired at very high prices from private landlords.
I am not saying that I agree entirely with the provisions of the 1947 Act, where the local authorities still pay approximately the same price. But there was the great distinction that under the 1947 Act it was recognised that any betterment value should not accrue to the private landlord, and that the local authority paid a development charge to the central fund. The Joint Undersecretary of State knows certain Ayrshire burghs as well as I do. He knows of instances where a portion of farmland has been taken over and built upon and that negotiations are now being conducted by the local authority to acquire the rest of the farm. That has happened in many burghs and the services have been brought up to the verge of the agricultural land now in private ownership. But the rates paid by the agricultural owner are negligible. Until the local authority acquired it, the land was regarded purely as agricultural land, and appropriate rates were paid.

Commander Galbraith: I do not know why the hon. Gentleman should hammer the point so hard. He agrees that the land is used for agricultural purposes at the present time. The sum to be paid is existing use value, which is agricultural value, and that is the answer.

Mr. Manuel: I am delighted to hear that. I can hardly believe it. We have never had anything like that before. In effect, what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is telling me is that a farm is derated to one-eighth of its value on the valuation roll. When it is acquired the local authority will run the usual rule of thumb over it and multiply that figure of one-eighth by 20 or even 21, and I take it that that total is all that the local authority will pay. Why, we shall get enough land for a £10 note to do all the building we want to do.
This is a most astounding proposition. I warmly welcome the admission of the Joint Under-Secretary. I have been reading the Bill and I did not get that impression and I should like the Lord Advocate to say whether he agrees with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman.

The Lord Advocate: I agree, and I was prepared to say so when I summed up the debate.

. Mann: Following the statement by the Joint Under-Secretary, about the land being acquired at its agricultural value, may I say that he knows that land cannot be compulsorily acquired if it is used for agriculture. Therefore, the price to the local authority will be the price that the owner of the agricultural land wants. It will not be subject to arbitration.

Hon. Members: Answer‡

Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): This is a Second Reading debate. The point will be answered in due course. This is not a Committee stage.

Mr. Ross: We never get answers in the Scottish Grand Committee.

Mr. Manuel: In that assurance was the Lord Advocate saying that the proposition I put about the rates being paid in the local authority area—that the derated value was the actual value which the district valuer would assess—was correct? Did his affirmative answer include that, or is he taking the full value of the valuation roll before derating? If he is, my argument is still correct and the local authorities will still be fleeced, as they will always be when they acquire land up to which they have brought services. I hope that that point will be cleared up.
As I read the Bill I am afraid that full scarcity value will still be paid. I appreciate that certain aspects of the changes in respect of development charges needed amendment. I should like the Lord Advocate to say just what action will be taken by the Government about the repayment of development charges which have already been paid by private individuals. I do not think that the Government can approach this problem and treat different people in different ways. Where development charge has been paid we must try to get some sort of equality.
I should like a further piece of information. After the Bill becomes an Act will there be an intimation that there will be a certain date before which claims must be lodged, or is it to be taken that nothing will be conceded after some date in the past? In other respects the Government have gone much too far.

In many respects they are putting back the clock. I hope that in Committee we shall have ample opportunity to amend the Bill. We must examine it very carefully so far as it will protect the local authorities.
I hope that we can have a clear indication from the local authorities about any changes which they would like to be made in this Measure which is most complicated. I am certain that on reflection the House will agree with my hon. and learned Friend that it was inopportune to bring forward this legislation at this time when the Scottish Grand Committee is cluttered up with such a large amount of business. I hope that, fully recognising that fact, ample time will be allowed in Committee so that we can fully probe the implications of the Bill and try to make amendments so that the people of Scotland may get the full benefit of the work which we do there.

5.26 p.m.

Mr. W. G. Bennett: As a back bencher I want to assure the Government that this Measure has the full support of the average Member on this side of the House

Dr. Morgan: Where are they?

Mr. Bennett: The Bill will go a long way towards getting us out of the chaotic conditions which the country suffered as a result of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. The very essence of the poverty—

Dr. Morgan: What poverty?

Mr. Bennett: You are here only as a spectator, and you should remember that.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I may be here as a spectator, and I shall certainly remember that.

Mr. Bennett: The very poverty of the representations against the Measure have been shown by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. D. Johnston). He went a long way to try to prove that the private builder will be embarrassed by having conditions imposed upon him which are much more onerous than the local authority will have to bear when it builds houses.
The hon. and learned Gentleman is concerned that the private builder will be


asked to pay the market value whereas the local authority will pay the present use value. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) asked a number of questions about the present use value. The term explains itself. It is the present use value—the use to which the land is put. If it is producing potatoes, that is the use value. If the tonnage is 10 tons to the acre, that is the value. If it is producing nothing, then that is the value. It is very simple.
The ordinary builder, the man who is willing to build houses either for sale or letting, will compel the owner of land to sell at a fair price. The hon. and learned Member for Paisley need not worry himself. The private builder and the community will be able to look after their own interests by the use of the law of supply and demand. If the private owner of land asks an extortionate price of the private builder who proposes to use the land, then the local authority will come in and get the land at a very much lower price.
Obviously, the owner of the land, if it be agricultural land, or any other land, will ensure that he sells at perhaps a slightly higher price than he might get from the local authority, but not at a price which would prevent the builder acquiring the land for building purposes. The worries which have been expressed here today about looking after the interests of the private builder who supplies houses either for sale or for letting are fictitious. They ought never to be put forward by any hon. Member on either side.
I am not at all worried about the case of the master builder who wants to build a workshop and is refused permission and then sees someone else come along, apply for permission to erect a cinema and is allowed to do so. I do not think we ought to look at this matter from the point of view of the exceptional case. The Bill contains many Clauses which will be fully argued and perhaps amended in Committee, but it is a first-class Measure and I commend it to the House.

5.31 p.m.

Mr. E. G. Willis: Let me assure the hon. Member for Woodside (Mr. W. G. Bennett) that we on this side of the House are not so much

concerned with personal interests, but with the interests of the community. This Bill excludes the interests of the community.
I was very interested in the speech of the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Thoniton-Kemsley), who was so solicitous for the landowner. He is the spendthrift Member of the House of Commons when it comes to dealing with these owners. I remember that in 1947 he devoted a great deal of time on the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Bill to arguing that the compensation terms offered were too small. Now he is arguing the same thing from a different point of view. He is consistently on the side of the landowner.
One thing about the 1947 Act was that, while it did not offer the solution that I would have desired, namely, the nationalisation of the land, it tried to collect for the community the betterment values arising out of the efforts of the community. But in this Measure the Government are deliberately throwing this overboard, and putting the clock back because they are giving a better guarantee to the landowner. The landowner is now to be compensated for losing the development value. I say that that is quite wrong, and I cannot understand this tenderness for the landowner.
In Part IV of the Bill provision is made for compensation payable in full for any depreciation in the value of an interest in land caused by an order revoking or modifying a planning permission, irrespective of whether there is an unexpended balance or not. That is an example of the tenderness shown to the landlord. I know of no other business in which a gambler is compensated by the community if he produces a commodity which the State decides should not be produced in the interests of the community. But the land speculator can gamble, and if he loses in his gamble he is to be compensated.

Commander Galbraith: The owner has got the land and he is not making a gamble. He was assured by the planning authority that he could go on with his development, but then the planning authority changed its mind. The owner may have spent money on the development or may have paid an additional sum for the land than he otherwise would have


paid. That is not speculation and it is not a gamble. It is acting on the decision of a duly constituted body.

Mr. Willis: What the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is saying to the landowner is what the White Paper says about this subject:
One result of the changes so far outlined is that there would be a free market in land, in the sense that anyone would be able to offer land for sale at whatever price he thinks appropriate without the fear that his action might result in compulsory acquisition.
In other words, the land speculator is set free to speculate. I say that if he speculates and loses he should bear the loss. If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman were in business he would do that.
Any other type of business man who speculates suffers his own loss. He does not come to this House and ask for compensation unless, of course, there happens to be a Government with a Tory majority and he is part of a sufficiently large pressure group to be able to influence the Government to introduce legislation to protect him. But if he is not in that position he bears his own losses.
Why should we show this tenderness to the landowner? Surely if the community creates a value the community should get that value, not the landowner. That is what is wrong with this Bill. The 1947 Act tried to set out to accomplish that. It endeavoured to recover for the community those values which the efforts of the community created. But from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman we have had a new doctrine today. The Government do not consider that to be necessary any more than they consider it necessary to protect the community but only to protect a section of the community. Is that the position of the Government? That seemed to be what was outlined by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman in his opening speech this afternoon.

Commander Galbraith: If the hon. Gentleman would read my opening speech—

Willis: I listened to it.

Commander Galbraith: Then if he reads it he will understand it better.

Mr. Willis: I shall also read it, because it might be useful to me as I travel round Scotland addressing meetings. And we might have another by-election.

Mr. Ross: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman will see what happens when my hon. Friends read some of his speeches on other Bills.

Mr. Willis: My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) raised a very substantial point on Clause 42 which dealt with the repeal of the provision of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950. My hon. Friend gave us an example of a slum dwelling site of which the worth was £300 or £400 and for which the local authority would under the 1950 Act pay £300 or £400 compensation. My hon. Friend has told us that as a result of the repeal of that Act the local authority would now be able to deduct the cost of pulling this building down and thereby reducing, its costs by £100.
As my hon. Friend pointed out, this will not happen under the Housing Repairs and Rents (Scotland) Bill. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman seems to think it will, but we on this side of the House say that it will not. In fact, about the only property that will be kept in a decent state of repair as a result of that Bill is the slum property, the property that ought to be pulled down.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman will surely admit that some of this will be kept because no local authority can pull down all the slum property at short notice. Therefore, that property will have a value and the local authority will not be able to deduct the demolition charges. I take it, also, that the owner of that particular property will also be compensated for the balance of any established development value for the land to which he is entitled. Is that so?

Commander Galbraith: I have said at least ten times that the ceiling for compulsory purchase by public authorities is the present use value plus the unexpended value of the claim plus the supplement in regard to the interest.

Mr. Willis: That means to say that instead of paying site value, the authority will now pay the value of the property plus this unexpended part of the development value of that property, which is higher than what has been paid previously. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman should look at this again. Certainly, on this side of fine House we shall have to consider it carefully.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Angus and Mearns on one point, that we ought to have a long time to discuss this Bill. Yet the Government have left us only two months in which to discuss thoroughly 95 pages of highly technical legal jargon. The hon. Gentleman suggested that this simplified the procedure, but at least up to 1947 we had only one Act whereas since we have had the 1953 Act and the 1954 Act.
This will be a paradise for the legal fraternity and they will enjoy themselves immensely in trying to work out what all this means. The Government are to be condemned for introducing the Bill so late in the Session. It ought to have been introduced before Christmas, before the Housing Repairs and Rents (Scotland) Bill, because then we might have been able to consider the latter Bill in the light of Clause 42 of this Bill.
This is a bad Bill in which I think the Government are trying to go backwards and by which they are acting unfairly to the community. For all those reasons, I hope that we shall divide against its Second Reading at the end of the debate.

5.42 p.m.

. Jean Mann: I am glad to have the opportunity of following some hon. Members opposite, particularly the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) who, like myself, is a vice-president of the Town and Country Planning Association. However, I am rather surprised at his point of view on how we shall achieve planning under this Bill, because I fear that it will not do so but will rather obstruct planning. As for his references to Clause 23, I think that the compensation proposed in some cases may be rather large and that restrictions are necessary.
I recall receiving a letter from a man living in one of the congested areas of Glasgow, who knew that I was urging people to open their windows as a first precaution against tuberculosis. I do not retract from that in any way. This poor man wrote to say that he could not do that because of the offensive fumes which filled the house every time the window was opened. Is that a suitable type of property for compensation when our medical officers go around listing the

offensive industries? Such properties should be transferred without compensation.
I do not want to dwell on things that may be more adequately considered during the Committee stage. It is the principle of the Bill which sells planning down the river. No wonder there is such a lot of technical jargon in the Bill, such a lot of legal phrases that we cannot understand. We heard the Joint Undersecretary of State say that his right hop. Friend had tried to get something in simple language. Are we to understand that it is not possible to re-write this Bill in simple language? Perhaps it is not desirable because, if it were written in the language in which, say, Agatha Christie would write it, we would know what we were being exposed to, robbery with violence.
This Bill is dropping the advance made from the time of the Barlow Report, from which stemmed the Uthwatt Report, which was to replace all that we had been robbed of in the past. But let me go back a bit. The central areas of Glasgow, were given by a Lord Provost in the 17th century whose name, I believe, was Campbell. He gave as a gift to some of the bailies, the area from the Tolbooth right along to Blythswood for a consideration called a wanworth. That, also, was rather obscure in case the ordinary public tumbled to what was happening. If anyone asks what a wanworth is, it was the term used in that century for "the feeding of ae hen for ae year"—that is, for the feeding of a hen for a year.
I believe that even today, while the congregation of a church in Blythswood is worshipping, someone is drawing an increment from the land on which that church was built. We all know of the millions of pounds that have gone into the hands of landlords while they slept or while they were perhaps gambling— if I want to be vicious—on the Riviera. The money was mounting up all the time, the value was being added to their bankbooks and that of a generation after them.
A time came when we said that this must cease. A war was finishing and, even before it finished, when we saw Glasgow expanding, some of us a little more far-sighted than the others—I include the hon. Gentleman the Member


for North Angus and Mearns—saw that at some time there would require to be an exit. This would have to be done not by building new dormitory towns for the people, but by the building of self-contained towns which would accommodate not only people, but industry, shops, schools and all the other public and social services. And by such a development we would be creating a new town and, therefore, recreating new values. That was all done as a result of the Barlow Report.
Then came the Uthwatt Committee to decide how we should apportion this value. It is well known to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, as well as to ex-councillors on both sides of the House, what Glasgow had to pay when wanting an extension. Do they remember? Two hon. Members from the other side were on the Housing Committee. We were told that the price of one area in Glasgow was £112 per acre. It belonged to the Duke of Montrose and was agricultural land. I went to the assessment office to find out what the Duke was paying. He was derated for agricultural purposes, and was paying 5s. an acre. He asked £112. I agree that it was given to him willingly because it was about the cheapest piece of land we could get in Glasgow, and £112 per acre was regarded as cheap.
May I remind hon. Gentlemen opposite that when we were trying to acquire that dreadful, sore spot in the centre of Glasgow from Frederick Street to High Street, which included Rotten Row, Dean Street and Balmano Brae, we remitted it to the arbiter. After waiting for months we were told by the arbiter that the area would cost us £14,000 an acre. Have we not reached a stage when these huge, fantastic sums for compensation should make us seek a better solution? Where could we look better than to the places where we are redeveloping on a large scale?

Commander Galbraith: I would remind the hon. Lady that she did not object to paying £112 per acre to the representative of the Duke of Montrose because she knew that the money was required to pay to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mrs. Mann: At that time the Duke was having to pay very little back to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Today he

would be mulcted in Surtax but at that time Surtax was nothing to what it is today. In any case, that remark was a bit irrelevant.

Sir William Darling: rose—

. Mann: Here is another vice-president of the council.

Sir W. Darling: We must get these facts correct. The hon. Lady has suggested that the Duke was paying Surtax. Was not the money a capital payment? There is no question of Income Tax or Surtax in that case.

Mrs. Mann: That makes me think that next year I will propose the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling) as president.
The Commission was set up, and years were spent in discussion. Conferences were held in the country. Ultimately it was agreed that the problems were inseparable. "Twin problems" we called them. Indeed, we used to call them the "com" and "bet" twins, meaning compensation and betterment. That was when we got the recommendation for a betterment charge by the Uthwatt Committee.
Today the betterment charge is being scrapped, and that is completely selling planning down the river. We are told that for down value payments the Chancellor will compensate a local authority if it has to compensate, say, the owner of a factory whose change of development is downward. He will increase the compensation to the local authority from 20 per cent, to 50 per cent. Even so, it may still prevent the local authority from urging that the factory shall close down. If it does, and if it goes say from the middle of Glasgow to Glasgow new town in Cumbernauld, that land should have a betterment value.
Curious anomalies will arise from this Bill. The absence of any provision for collecting part of the betterment must, in the long run, limit the funds available for compensation to those who lose. The result is that much less money will be available for real planning. I thought it ludicrous to hear the Joint Undersecretary of State say that the Government were prepared to find £2 million for compensation. That is utterly inadequate, and even if we found £2 million we ought


to be prepared to find an equivalent £2 million for betterment. What do we do, for instance, with the old-age pensioners? Why should I drag them into this? The Chancellor said that they were just part of a big insurance fund, and as the insurance scheme had to be reviewed this year he was postponing any payment to the old-age pensioners until the review took place, and any increase to them might be wrapped up with an additional contributory payment into the scheme by the workers.
When we deal with the land, we should say, "Here are landowners. Some are gaining and some are losing." It is a question of the value of the land. It should be a simple proposition to assess whether land is increasing in value or is losing. In the Uthwatt Report, with reference to floating value, we see what the Joint Under-Secretary has failed to see. It is obvious in the Minister's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) that he did not see the point which was aptly illustrated in the Uthwatt Report in regard to floating values. As the community develops outwards, the further areas on the perimeter increase in value. That is where some of the increased betterment can be found.
We have before us in this Bill what we have had in other Bills, the Treasury taking over liability. It will protect the landowner from having to pay betterment fees, just as in the Rent Bill the local authorities have to take over the slums after the landlords, the owners of the slums, have lifted rent from them for perhaps 100 years. In the Bill, instead of our collecting betterment from those whose land is improving, the Treasury is to take over liability for compensation. Who is the Treasury? It is all of us. The electors, the ratepayers, will have to finance it, and he whose land increases in value will get away with the spoil.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. A. Woodburn: Because the Government have introduced a tremendous amount of legislation this Session, a great many important Measures are being crowded through the House. There is really not sufficient time for people either to digest the Measures or to discuss them properly. They are nearly

all Measures of a destructive character. Their aim is to destroy something which the Labour Government did and to break down improvements for the community. The Government hope to rush them through before a General Election puts a stop to their destructive progress. We are suffering from a kind of rake's progress.
This Bill comes into that category. I agree that it is a machinery Bill, but it is associated with the destruction of a reform, which in various forms, has been introduced time and time again, to try to secure for the public something belonging to the public. On every occasion when some machinery has been devised to do that and a Tory Government have come back, they have automatically revoked and destroyed it.
I was interested to look back to the 1909 Budget in which Mr. Lloyd George tried to introduce this. There are people here who can remember the campaign that ran through the country when, by an increment tax, he tried to secure for the community some of this betterment value. He quoted the parish of Plumstead, of which I hope some hon. Gentleman opposite may be appointed to the custodianship, because I think that is one of the places where one can get some of the plums that take one outside the House.

Mr. John Taylor: Northstead.

Mr. Woodburn: Northstead, is it? I am quite willing that it should be Plum-stead.
In any case agricultural land there was worth £3 an acre. Mr. Lloyd George said that in 1845 250 acres costing £750 had a capital value of £15,000. When Woolwich Arsenal came into being, 5,000 houses had to be built and the income from the land was £14,250— almost 100 per cent, of the capital value. It had then already earned £1 million in ground rent. After 20 years the land and houses reverted to the landowner— land worth £15,000 at the beginning was worth £2 million.

Mr. W. G. Bennett: Would the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what we would pay for that under the Bill?

Mr. Woodburn: I would not like to frighten the hon. Gentleman by mentioning a figure, but he would be lucky to get for £20 million ground that was then worth £2 million.

Mr. Bennett: In that condition?

Mr. Woodbnrn: No, it is all built up, of course.
Mr. Lloyd George's proposal was an attempt to recover about 20 per cent, of increment which the landlord had made no effort at all to earn. Mr. Lloyd George hoped to get 20 per cent, of that for the nation. He then laid down the principle that governs the minds of all my hon. Friends today; it should be the increment on the value accruing to land from the enterprise of the community. We have no desire to deprive a man of the fruits of his own efforts, but he should not be able to appropriate the value accruing from the labours of the community. It has been assumed that all the value accrues from the community; the value may accrue from private enterprise but have nothing to do with the landowner at all. The building of a factory may increase the value of ground adjoining. We are talking about the general principle that a person shall not reap where he has not sown.
Our first complaint refers not to the Bill's sins of commission but to those of omission. In other words, it is the landlord's charter. It enables him to win both ways. If his land is bought compulsorily, he is paid by the community compensation in the form of development value to the standard laid down in the 1947 Act. If the land is not acquired compulsorily, and he goes into the free market, he sells at full value and pockets 100 per cent, of the increment. In other words, where there is paying to be done, it is the community that pays; where there is reaping, it is the landlord who reaps.
The development charge has been abolished, and of course it is to that principle that we really object. This Bill does not include any measures to deal with that problem. The development charge, which was instituted by the 1947 Act, though theoretically absolutely defensible and just, in practice came up against two fundamental objections. It was never understood and was never regarded by the public as just.
The people who were having to pay it did not regard it as a just tax. They felt that it was an imposition. That was because the people selling the land did not sell it at existing-use value but added

the development charge before the Central Land Board came along. In most cases the person who bought the land not only paid the existing-use value but the market value. Then the Central Land Board came and he had to pay the development value all over again.
That aroused considerable resentment, because it looked like senseless taxation; it made the buyer pay twice for the same thing, and I quite agree was a deterrent to many developments. People had no inducement to sell their land at all. Because people were to get nothing from it there was difficulty at times in persuading them to allow the land to be developed. When I was administering this law, I always felt that a great deal of the disadvantage would have been avoided if the seller had paid the tax, and once he had got the money for the land the development value would have been a deduction from his price and not an addition to the cost to the purchaser.
What we object to most is that the Bill is once more handing back to the landlords the power to collect increments which they have done nothing to create. On that ground we shall certainly register our protest in the House itself. There will be some compensation, of course, for those people who paid development value twice. I should like the Lord Advocate to tell us whether that repayment of development charge which is to be made to those who paid more than the existing-use value will apply even in the case of some local authorities and hospital boards which may not have purchased the land compulsorily.
When they bought they may have paid not only the existing-use value but the development value. I know that, according to the law, none of them should have done that. They were not supposed to buy land at that price, but they came across great difficulty, and I am sure that some of them did that. For example, although hospital boards could have acquired certain houses and land compulsorily, they often felt that the transaction appeared so unfair to the community that, wanting to foster the good will of the community, they refused to purchase compulsorily. I am sure that in some cases they eventually paid more than the existing-use value. Will these hospital boards, local authorities and public bodies receive their part of the development value.
In the future, local authorities will face another problem of a similar character. There will be a gradually widening gap between the existing-use value as it is now and the changing value of money in the free market for land. I understand that Sir Malcolm Trustram Eve said that he could imagine two identical pieces of land next to each other, the value of each of which might differ by as much as £50 to £250, depending on whether the local authority buys compulsorily or whether the land is sold in the free market. That will cause great irritation in the community, and local authorities do not want to be unpopular by doing things which appear to be unfair.
I question whether this part of the Bill is going to work. Will local authorities be able to work this Bill if it puts them in a position of appearing to be unjust as between one member of the community and another? How can we force them to acquire compulsorily if they feel that they are being unjust to a citizen in so doing? It is not really an injustice, but it appears to be so, because the Government have set the other land free to go to the highest bidder. We say that by instituting this free market for land they are destroying the possibility of the part of the Bill relating to the other land working as well.
The English County Councils Association has said so. It has drawn attention to
the invidious position of having to choose between perpetuating a manifest injustice to an individual or carrying out, regardless of the consequences for that individual, their undoubted right to acquire land which is needed in the public interest.
Local authorities will not want to acquire land when the procedure appears to be mean and arbitrary.
Under the 1947 Act all land could pass at existing-use value, and although the Act broke down to some extent because of the misunderstanding about it, my information is that in recent times the people began to understand it and the Act was working remarkably well up till last year. The balance between development value and betterment was working out quite reasonably. The Government have divorced the betterment value from the development charge. In other words, the Government have thrown away the automatic income that went to pay for

the development, and it means that the development now is going to be paid for out of State funds.
At first sight, that seems very generous, but when the Government start to pay money out, as we all know, they look at it very carefully; and when a local authority is going to do any development for which the Government are going to pay, it would appear that the local authority will have a very definite brake put upon its improvements and developments. If the Government are going to examine every penny that is paid by local authorities for development, as I understand it, the local authority will have to look very carefully into how it is going to develop.
That may be right, but how often will the Government say, "You cannot develop because we are not going to pay the money"? I should like to know what guarantee there is on the planning side, which the Government say is not going to be interfered with, that there will not be any stinginess on the part of the Government which will put a throttle on development altogether. We think it is a great mistake to throw away the automatic income which existed when the development charge was in operation.
We condemn this Bill because it has made no attempt to put anything in its place. If the development charge was wrong, it could have been put right, but just to surrender the whole of the development value to the landlord with-out any check whatsoever seems to us preposterous and another gift to a section of the people who back the party opposite. To set land free to be sold to speculators and bidders is an entire surrender of their duty to look after the public interest.
This Bill ought to include some method of recovering the betterment for the community, or at least some part of it. It is said that if 100 per cent, of the betterment is asked for, a deterrent will be imposed upon development. There is a joke about that, because while 100 per cent, of the betterment was required, it all depended on what was the estimate of the betterment. If the Central Land Board estimated the betterment at only 50 per cent, of what it ought to have been, the charge was 100 per cent, of 50 per cent., and the landlord still retained some benefit even then. The Central Land


Board exercised a great deal of common sense in that respect.
Regulations were introduced to lay down this definite principle that the figure should be 100 per cent, of the betterment value, and that was a firm declaration. But who settled what the betterment value was? That was obviously a pure guess by the Central Land Board, which had to use its good sense to see that it was fair to all parties. Sometimes it would be 100 per cent, of 80 per cent., and sometimes it would be 100 per cent, of 50 per cent. It simply meant that there was a discretion on the part of the Central Land Board to do what was right both by the person buying the land and the person selling the land. That could have worked perfectly well, and if it had begun to be understood, justice would have been done to everyone.
We feel strongly that the Government have made no attempt to tackle this problem. They have certainly said to their friends the landlords, "Here boys, take it. We are back again. Lloyd George has been thrown over. Everybody who has tried to deal with this problem has been thrown over." We have led the armies up the hill. When the Tories came in they led the armies down again. The landlords are back where they were before 1909. This Bill has thrown away the automatic income that should have arisen. The Bill has surrendered to the landlords the field of general betterment, although we are told that the Government have to some extent protected the local authorities.
I am not quite sure about Clause 42. It is quite true that paragraph (a) deals with houses acquired by local authorities to execute work to render them fit for human habitation. That does not necessarily mean that a house which is going to be taken over to be rendered fit for human habitation will be of no value. The Secretary of State for Scotland, on the Housing Bill, stated that houses which were of no value would be pulled down. It was those houses which had to be occupied and for which presumably rents had to be paid, that were going to be involved in repair and reconstruction. Is the land valuer going to value these houses at nil? That is what we are not satisfied about.
We are not certain that the price to be paid under this Bill might not be more

than the cleared-site value by the time houses are put up. The cost of demolition may not be deducted; the cost of the old slums may be added. Also involved in the matter is compulsory purchase in clearance areas. Is compulsory purchase in a clearance area automatically to be deemed to be of no value? We should like the Lord Advocate to clear up these questions.
The Bill makes it easier for developers to develop, because they do not have to go through so many formalities, but it also makes it easier for landlords to hold developers up to ransom. That is why we object to that part of the Bill. No attempt has been made to assist local authorities to recover development expenditure by allowing them to buy adjoining land which is likely to attract betterment. When a local authority develops an estate or an area the land nearby automatically begins to attract betterment, and if a local authority creates a vast amount of development value it should be able to buy sufficient of the land to recover the betterment value, by feuing, leasing or letting, as time goes on. That is one of the means whereby some of the evils of the Bill might have been avoided.
What guarantee does the Bill offer that good agricultural land will not be sold to the highest bidder? It is quite true that the Secretary of State has planning authority, but he will be placed in a dilemma if someone offers a farmer a huge sum of money for agricultural land, say, in Musselburgh, which is probably the finest land in Britain. When I was Secretary of State I had to prohibit any development there because of the value of the land.

Sir W. Darling: The local authority was going to develop the land.

Mr. Woodburn: The hon. Member is quite wrong. Mining development was going to take place in East Lothian and rob practically the whole of that area of its best land, and it was going to encroach on Musselburgh. When that problem arises again, and a great financial interest is prepared to put down a tremendous amount of money or offer a great bribe to a farmer, he may be prepared even to go out of business and sacrifice the land. What will be the position of the Secretary of State in that case? What


protection does the Bill offer against the bargaining away of our best agricultural land?
This is a complex Bill. None of my hon. Friends nor I pretend to be able to deal with it in the short time at our disposal today. After we register our vote against it, a further Bill is to be dealt with tonight. Seldom can a more complex piece of machinery have been put before the House. As my hon. Friends have pointed out, it has been introduced in the midst of a great deal of other work, which makes it almost impossible for the Opposition, or even hon. Members on the Government side, to examine it properly. We expect the Lord Advocate, with his usual clarity, to explain all its Clauses and their various implications as he goes along.

Mr. Ross: We insist upon it.

Mr. Woodburn: But even then we regard it as being an undue burden upon him at this time in the Session. There is no great hurry for the Bill. The Government should leave it for another six months, to allow local authorities to examine it, give the House time to digest it, and the lawyers time to understand it. I have talked to some eminent legal authorities about it, and not one has said that he understands it. The same thing has been said by my hon. Friends; it has been said in another place, and the Attorney-General has practically admitted his inability to understand its English equivalent.
I should not be surprised to hear the Lord Advocate make a similar confession, although he may be quite unique and say that he does understand it. That will be extremely interesting. In that case we hope that he will be able to convince us that he does. It will be even more miraculous if he helps us to understand it. I call upon him now to say that he is the unique person who understands the Bill, and will explain it to us, outlining all its repercussions. If he can do so we may reconsider our position, but unless he gives us some explanation of the way in which betterment is to be acquired for the community and local authorities are to be protected, we shall register our vote against the Bill.

6.26 p.m.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. J. L. Clyde): I do not propose to put forward the view —which would admittedly be quite unique—that this is a simple and easily intelligible Bill, which the meanest intelligence could grasp. I am quite prepared to admit that it is complicated and intricate, but the reason is that the subject matter with which it deals is both intricate and complicated. I shall develop that point a little later on.
Notwithstanding its admitted difficulties, the House has heard a series of able speeches indicating a quite definite appreciation of the main structure of the Bill. It is all very well for a right hon. Member speaking at the Dispatch Box, or an hon. Member in some other part of the House, to grumble at the intricacy and complication of the Bill, but the gilt is taken off the gingerbread a little when he follows up that complaint by a clear indication that he appreciates what it is about.
That comment has occurred to me more than once as I have listened to speeches from hon. Members on both sides of the House. The amount of lucidity expressed in the speeches which have already been made makes me all the more doubtful about my ability adequately to wind up the debate. I shall do what I can to deal with the various points that have been raised, many of which may well have to be considered again in Committee. I am dealing with them today in the hope that I may be able to clear away some of the difficulties, thereby reducing the discussion that will necessarily have to take place on the next stage.
The main complaint, which was made by the hon. and learned Member for Paisley (Mr. D. Johnston), repeated by the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn), and also reflected in the speech of the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) was that the Bill was destructive. The right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire actually used that word. The hon. and learned Member for Paisley said that it took us back to the 1932 position, and the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie said that it "sold planning down the river," whatever that attractive-sounding phrase may mean. I want to deal with that criticism at once, because


it is based upon a failure to appreciate what the Bill seeks to do.
The Bill does not alter or modify planning; its purpose lies in a much narrower sphere. It seeks to complete the solution of the problem created by the breakdown of the development charge provisions in the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Stirlingshire agreed that the provisions of the 1947 Act in regard to development charge constituted a deterrent to development. What we have tried to do is first of all to enable the planning authorities to go on carrying out planning and development without fear of undue cost; and at the same time, now that the development charge has been abolished, as it recently was, to wind up its consequences as fairly as possible. So the purpose and ambit of the Bill is primarily a financial one. It is not concerned with planning in itself. It does not sell planning down the river, because it does not deal with planning. It does not destroy the provisions for planning, because it leaves the whole of the planning provisions set out in the 1947 Act still intact.
The difficulty we have had to face in regard to development charge and the difficulty the Bill seeks to solve is this. Development value under the 1947 Act was taken out of land in Scotland and transferred to the State. That is one of the consequences of the 1947 Act. The State, under that Act, substituted for that value which was taken out of land a right on the part of the people who owned that land to a share in the £300 million fund and left that right as a personal right. That is the situation with which we are faced, and it is that situation with which we have endeavoured to cope.
I merely want to stress what Was said much more clearly and ably by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Joint Undersecretary of State, who moved the Second Reading. The broad effect of the Bill is as follows. Where compensation was due out of that £300 million fund before the commencement of the Act which the Bill will ultimately become, then under the Bill we shall pay the claimant the actual loss he suffered up to the amount of his claim, and thereafter all other claims will pass with the land and will cease to be personal claims. In

cases arising after the commencement of the operation of the Bill, the unexhausted balance of the claim not paid out for any particular piece of land will be available to compensate the person who owns the land for the time being when development of the land is actually prevented by a local authority. That claim for compensation will arise only when the development is actually prevented.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).— [Queen's Recommendation signified.]

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision with respect to Scotland for compensation and other payments by reference to claims for payments under section fifty-five of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947, and to amend certain provisions of that Act, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid (in this resolution referred to as "the Act"), it is expedient to authorise—

A. The issue out of the Consolidated Fund of sums for the making by the Secretary of State and the Central Land Board (in this resolution referred to as "the Board") of such payments by reference to such claims as aforesaid as are authorised to be made under the

Act in respect of acts done or events taking place before the commencement of the Act.
B. The raising of money by the Treasury, in any manner in which they are authorised to raise money under the National Loans Act, 1939, for the purpose of providing sums to be issued as mentioned in the preceding paragraph, or of providing for the replacement of sums so issued.
C. The repayment of sums issued as mentioned in paragraph A of this resolution, together with interest thereon—

(1) by the payment into the Exchequer by the Secretary of State, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of annual instalments, of principal and interest combined, and
(2) by the payment into the Exchequer of any sums recovered by the Secretary of State or the Board under the Act in respect of such payments as are mentioned in paragraph A of this resolution.

D. The issue out of the Consolidated Fund of sums paid into the Exchequer as mentioned in the last preceding paragraph, and the application of such sums, in so far as they represent principal, in redemption or re payment of debt, and, in so far as they represent interest, in payment of interest otherwise falling to be paid out of the permanent annual charge for the National Debt.


E. The payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(1) of sums for the making by the Secretary of State of payments under the Act in respect of restrictions on development of land taking effect after the commencement of the Act;
(2) of the administrative expenses of the Secretary of State and the Board under the Act;
(3) of any sums repayable by the Board under the Act in respect of development charges relating to the winning and working of minerals;
(4) of any increase attributable to the provisions of the Act in the sums which under any other enactment are payable out of moneys so provided.


F. The cancellation or reduction, by virtue of the Act, of liabilities in respect of—

(1) a development charge where an equivalent deduction is made by reference to that charge either from any payment such as is mentioned in paragraph A of this resolution which would otherwise become payable, or from such a claim as aforesaid;
(2) development charges in respect of the provision of accommodation for agricultural workers.


G. The payment into the Exchequer of any sums other than those mentioned1 in paragraph A, C or E of this resolution received by the Secretary of State or the Board under the Act and not required by the Act to be dealt with in any other way.—[Mr. J. Stuart.]

7.10 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Upton: I am sure that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury would not like the Committee to accept this Money Resolution "on the nod." I am sure he will be able to provide the Committee with a little information on the financial implications involved. The Bill itself falls into six parts, and in respect of four of them the Committee is asked to accept various financial commitments. The only information about actual amounts that the Committee is given is that the amount involved in Part I is not likely to exceed £2 million.
We are also informed that no estimate can be made of the financial liability involved in Parts II, IV and V, but we are given slight comfort in the fact that the liability under these headings is not likely to be very heavy. However, I think the Committee would like to know from the Financial Secretary what exactly he is asking it to accept. I am sure he has the information at his disposal to enable the Committee to accept this Motion with an easier conscience than would otherwise be the case.

Mr. C. R. Hobson: I should like to support my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) on this point, because I think it is necessary that we should be informed whether the Money Resolution provides compensation for the British Electricity Authority in view of the complications that may arise on Clause 2 in regard to the wholesaling of electricity. I think we are entitled to have some information on that because it would make the passage of this Resolution much easier.

The Chairman (Sir Charles Mac-Andrew): I think the hon. Member is ahead of time. We have not yet reached the Financial Resolution to which he is referring.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Surely we are to have some sort of statement. I realise that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury may not have come here armed with the information for which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) has asked, but my recollection of a previous and better Government was that there was always somebody on the Treasury Bench to give the information which the Committee required. Surely we are not going to accept this Resolution completely blindfold. The amount involved is considerable and it runs into several millions. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland will agree with me when I say that we are entitled to be told what is involved in this Resolution and to be given some idea of the meaning of the various parts of the Resolution, which are extremely complicated.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Surely we are going to get some information about the financial implications of this Resolution. I do not understand why the Lord Advocate went away at this stage of our proceedings. We are entitled to have a clear statement of what is involved here.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Might I make a suggestion? There are three Ministers from the Scottish Office on the Government Front Bench and if they took it in turn they could explain fully what the Financial Resolution involves. What the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of


State does not know about it can perhaps be supplied by his right hon. and gallant Friend and his hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretaries of State for Scotland.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. James Stuart): This request for information has been raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall), and his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) who were not present in this Chamber when the Bill itself was under discussion. The object of this Money Resolution is fully set out in the terms of the Motion on the Order Paper. Obviously we have to operate the Bill which has received its Second Reading, and it is necessary to make financial provision to do so. That is the object of this Money Resolution, with which I hope the Committee will now agree.

Resolution to be reported tomorrow.

ELECTRICITY REORGANISATION (SCOTLAND) [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to transfer the functions of the Minister of Fuel and Power in Scotland in relation to electricity to the Secretary of State, to establish the South of Scotland Electricity Board and to transfer the functions of the British Electricity Authority in the south of Scotland and of the Scottish Area Boards to that Board, and for purposes connected therewith, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of any increase attributable to the said Act of the present Session in the sums which may be required by the Treasury for fulfilling any guarantees given by them under section fourteen of the Hydro-Electric Development (Scotland) Act. 1943, as read with section forty-seven of the Electricity Act, 1947, in respect of loans raised or to be raised by the South of Scotland Electricity Board, so, however, that the aggregate of the amounts outstanding in respect of the principal of any stock issued for the purpose of

raising any such loan and of any moneys temporarily borrowed by the said Board (other than any loan from the British Electricity Authority to the said Board by virtue of any financial adjustment made under the said Act of the present Session between the Authority and the Board, or any loan raised for the purpose of the said adjustment) do not at any time exceed the sum of seventy-five million pounds, excluding stock issued and moneys temporarily borrowed for the purpose of redeeming stock or repaying moneys temporarily borrowed;
(b) the payment into the Exchequer of any sums paid in or towards the repayment of any sum issued out of the Consolidated Fund by virtue of the said Act of the present Session; and
(c) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the expenses incurred in consequence of the provisions of the said Act of the present Session by any Minister of the Crown or Government Department.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.

7.19 p.m.

Mr. C. R. Hobson: I hope we shall be told by the Joint Undersecretary of State that there is sufficient money to compensate the British Electricity Authority, in view of the proposal to sell electricity wholesale. That may very well affect our attitude to this Motion, and particularly to Clause 2 of the Bill.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Henderson Stewart): I can give the hon. Member complete satisfaction about that. Adequate funds will be available. The Bill has been drafted on that assumption.

Mr. Hobson: The question is whether compensation is to be paid under the Bill. Therefore, we must ask whether there is sufficient money to pay compensation to the British Electricity Authority.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): Order, order. The hon. Gentleman cannot speak twice on the Report stage.

ELECTRICITY REORGANISATION (SCOTLAND) BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(TRANSFER OF THE FUNCTIONS OF THE MINISTER OF FUEL AND POWER TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE.)

7.21 p.m.

Amendment made: In page 2, leave out lines 4 and 5, and insert:
the Act of 1943, and, so far as they relate exclusively to Scotland, the functions of the Minister and the Secretary of State acting jointly under the Act of 1947."—[Mr. Henderson Stewart.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: There is one aspect of the transfer of functions and responsibility, from the Minister of Fuel and Power to the Secretary of State for Scotland, on which I should like further clarification. I raised the matter on the Second Reading of the Bill and the reply given me then by the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland was not entirely conclusive or satisfactory.
In consideration of the Explanatory Memorandum printed on the front of this Bill I wish to draw the attention of the Committee to the provisions of the Ministry of Fuel and Power Act, 1945. The second paragraph of the Memorandum reads:
The transfer to the Secretary of State, with some exceptions, of the functions of the Minister of Fuel and Power is effected by Clause 1.
The excepted functions are of a safety and efficiency character in connection with electricity supply and also the certification of meters and the measurement of electricity. There is nothing in the Memorandum, or in Clause 1 dealing with the wider responsibilities of the Minister of Fuel and Power under the 1945 Act.
On the Second Reading there was a good deal of misunderstanding in the House as to the provisions of Section 1 of the 1945 Act and, if I may, I will read shortly the appropriate Section as ii has a direct bearing upon this Clause.

Under the 1945 Act the Minister of Fuel and Power is charged with
the general duty of securing the effective and co-ordinated development of coal, petroleum and other minerals and sources of fuel and power in Great Britain, of maintaining and improving the safety, health and welfare of persons employed in or about mines and quarries therein, and of promoting "—
and here are the operative words—
economy and efficiency in the supply, distribution, use and consumption of fuel and power, whether produced in Great Britain or not.
That Act does not exclude Scotland; it leaves with the Minister of Fuel and Power responsibility for the development and for the efficient use of all forms of fuel and power in Great Britain.
Under this Bill, by Clause 1, we are transferring certain functions from the Minister of Fuel and Power to the Secretary of State for Scotland, but in my view the position remains obscure as to who is responsible ultimately, that is, either the Minister of Fuel and Power under the Act of 1945, or the Secretary of State for Scotland for the overall duty of co-ordinating fuel and power policy, embracing coal, gas, electricity, fuel oil and the remainder. It is significant that the Bill before the Committee makes no reference whatever to the 1945 Act—

The Chairman: That has nothing to do with Clause 1. The hon. Member can only talk about what is in the Clause.

Mr. Hector McNeil: Surely this is a point of considerable importance, Sir Charles. While it may be argued that this is not in Clause 1, it depends a great deal upon how the Clause is read. The hon. Gentleman is making the point that the obscurity of the drafting leaves this point ambiguous. With the greatest respect, I am sure it would be for the convenience of the Committee, and perhaps for the guidance of people involved in this Measure, if we knew what the right hon. Gentleman thinks that Clause 1 means in relation to the 1945 Act—which Minister is responsible. I take it that this is the point of the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Nabarro: If I might be permitted—

The Chairman: If I might be permitted. I do not see anything in Clause 1 about the 1945 Act.

Mr. Nabarro: Very well, Sir Charles, I shall not mention the 1945 Act again.
May I refer to the short title of Clause 1 which reads
Transfer of the functions of the Minister of Fuel and Power "?
What I want to know from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is whether the transfer of functions under this Clause takes within the ambit of transfer the general responsibility for national fuel and power policy so far as it is applied and related to Scotland. That is an obscure point in the drafting of this Clause, and it will be within your recollection, Sir Charles, that I endeavoured to have an Amendment set down on this point. It is printed on the Order Paper, but was not selected for discussion and it was as follows: in page 2, line 17, at end, insert:
(5) The functions referred to in the foregoing subsections shall not include the general duty of the Minister to secure the effective and co-ordinated development of coal, petroleum and other minerals and sources of fuel and power in Great Britain and of promoting economy and efficiency in the supply, distribution, use and consumption of fuel and power, whether produced in Great Britain or not, under section one of the Ministry of Fuel and Power Act, 1945, or under regulations made under that Act.
I am not approaching this as a matter of omission. I am now approaching it in an interrogatory fashion asking for a clear statement by my right hon. Friend as to whether the transfer of functions referred to in Clause 1 of this Bill, embraces within the transfer the general responsibilities of a national fuel efficiency and development policy that are at present within the powers of the Minister of Fuel and Power, under the Act of 1945, to which I have referred.
I hope by right hon. Friend will be able to give me a reply on this specific point because, within the transfer under Clause 1, we are creating a situation whereby the Secretary of State for Scotland will be responsible for the Highland Board and for the Lowland Board—that is to say, the South of Scotland Board —for the electricity generation and distribution industry. However, it leaves the responsibility with the Minister of Fuel and Power for the other nationalised fuel industries, coal and gas. Once the transfers under this Clause are carried out, it is difficult to understand who, in

the ultimate, will be responsible for national and overall fuel and power policy.

The Chairman: I gather that the hon. Member is now trying to get an answer to his Amendment to Clause 1 which I did not select and which, therefore, cannot be dealt with. Is that the case?

Mr. McNeil: With the greatest respect, Sir Charles, this is a point which we attempted to pursue earlier and it is most important. I am not competent to say that this is the only point at which it can be raised, but this seems the best point at which to raise it. For reasons at which we can guess, none of the Ministers so far has been able to give us an assurance upon this point.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I did give an assurance.

Mr. McNeil: The Joint Under-Secretary was kind enough to refer to a question which I and another hon. Member addressed at an earlier stage, and very courteous and gentlemanly he was about it, but his answer was as ambiguous as the drafting of Clause 1.
But perhaps I am wrong. If I am, it is quite easy for the hon. Gentleman now to tell us that, as was claimed by the Government, the Secretary of State is the Minister exclusively responsible for the co-ordination of all fuel and power industries in this area. We know perfectly well that he cannot give such an assurance, and it is because he cannot give it that the wording of this Clause is so vague. That is why no reference has been made to another enactment to which we are specifically forbidden to refer at this stage.
7.30 p.m.
The simple point is whether the Government will say, "Yes, we are sorry. In fact, we do not transfer to the Secretary of State the powers that we claimed that he would have. We agree that we cannot transfer the powers and we agree that the over-riding authority remains for the whole of the United Kingdom the Minister of Fuel and Power." If the Secretary of State will say that, although we shall still have an ambiguous Clause, we shall all know that the Government's claim has been bogus from the beginning.

Mr. Nabarro: May I continue? I gave way to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. McNeil: I am most apologetic. I thought the hon. Member had completed his speech.

Mr. Nabarro: I remind the Secretary of State that when this matter was dealt with, and in reply to a speech that I made on Second Reading, the Secretary of State, in column 483 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of 3rd February, used these words:
Let us consider that in Committee.
I claim that this is the only opportunity of considering this very important point in Committee, and as it will affect national fuel and power policy for many years ahead, not only in relation to Scotland but in relation to the whole of the United Kingdom, and especially in view of coal conservation aspects I believe that this is a question which I should press my right hon. Friend to answer in some detail.
I must press him to give a specific answer to what I called on Second Reading an abstruse legal point. No doubt the legal luminaries in this Committee can simplify the matter for me and help all hon. Members to understand exactly what the position would be in relation to fuel policy.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. James Stuart): I find that I did not open my mouth on 3rd February, according to column 483 of the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Nabarro: I am not sure that where the OFFICIAL REPORT says "Mr. Stewart" it means the Secretary of State for Scotland or one of the Joint Undersecretaries.

Mr. Stuart: The hon. Member should know how to spell the name.

Mr. Nabarro: I apologise if I have placed the responsibility on the wrong shoulders, but I still want an answer.

Mr. C. R. Hobson (Keighley): I hope that in speaking on the Motion now before the Committee I shall not be taken to be making a speech intended to be made on an Amendment which has not been called. As the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) has pointed out, the Committee is in a difficulty. I want to make a suggestion to the Secretary of State which I hope he will consider between now and the Report stage

with a view to amending one of the Schedules. The 1926 Act, among other things, dealt with the standardisation of frequency. In view of the close association between England and Scotland in the generation of electricity, and if he wants to avoid trouble in future and make matters clear to professional organisations and trade unionists who are interested in electrical generation, the Secretary, of State would be well advised to incorporate in one of the Schedules the relevant part of the 1926 Act.
A small Bill, the Post Office (Site and Railway) Bill, for example, goes into great detail with regard to specifications, and in view of the fact that the 1926 Act is to apply under this Bill we should have within the Schedules of the Bill the whole of the relevant Section of the 1926 Act so that the right hon. Gentleman may know exactly where he stands. At the moment things are rather nebulous. I hope that the Secretary of State will consider that suggestion seriously before the Report stage.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: The Secretary of State should pay very careful attention to what the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) has said. Whether he intended to do so or not, the hon. Member, in raising this question of responsibility already on Clause 1, has exposed the central weakness of the Bill. I tried to argue on a previous occasion that if it is now logical to hand over electricity to the control of the Secretary of State it is equally logical to give him control of coal, petroleum, and other sources of fuel. The truth is that the hon. Member for Kidderminster is far more discerning in these matters than are the Government whom he supports.
I understand that the Government support in general terms the recommendations of the Ridley Committee which, if it said anything at all, said that there should be a much closer co-ordination of our fuel and power services. Yet by this very Bill the Government, without any consideration of the wider implications, are going right against the recommendations of the Ridley Committee. We should be grateful to the hon. Member for Kidderminster, even if he did not intend us to be grateful, for exposing at such an early stage a very grave contradiction which is inherent in the nature of the Bill.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. L. W. Joynson-Hicks): Purely from the point of view of avoiding another civil war, it might be helpful if I tried to reply to English hon. Members now so as to allow the debate to carry on in relation to Scotland. I appreciate entirely that my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) gave us notice on Second Reading that he intended to raise this matter of responsibility. Having given that notice, he may be assured that we took the necessary steps to make quite certain that we were right and I can assure him that we are right.
I must inform the right hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) that the assurance which my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary gave on Second Reading was not quite as I understood the right hon. Gentleman to translate it. My hon. Friend, referring to a question by the hon. Member for Kidderminster, said:
I think that the answer is that the Bill transfers to the Secretary of State for Scotland the duties of the Minister of Fuel and Power in relation to electricity supply in Scotland. It does not affect the Minister's other duties, but clearly the Secretary of Slate and the Minister must act in the closest consultation on all matters of policy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd February, 1954; Vol. 532, col. 483.]
That is the situation as we thought it was then and as we now confirm it to be. There is nothing in the Bill, and certainly not in this Clause, which can curtail the Minister's powers and duties of co-ordination. What, in fact, is transferred are certain specific powers with regard to electricity supply.

Hon. Members: And generation.

Mr. Hobson: That is the point.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: The hon. Member says that that is the point, but it is a point which was not taken by the Government which the hon. Member presumably supported when they set up the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board and left co-ordinating powers in the hands of the Minister of Fuel and Power. Why the hon. Member should object to our following the same course now passes my comprehension. I should have thought that he at once would have considered that we had followed an established and valued precedent of which he would have had good regard. The situation is not a difficult one at all. The

question of co-ordinating powers is one which does not involve the Minister concerned having the complete control of the industries he co-ordinates.
My right hon. Friend, for instance, co-ordinates the fuel and power questions which arise in connection with coke ovens. Half the coke ovens of the country do not come under his jurisdiction—if I may use that word—but under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Supply, yet he is responsible for the co-ordination with the iron and steel industry. The same is true in regard to fuel research. We are not responsible for all fuel research. My right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council, through the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, has a lot of responsibility there. These questions of co-ordination are outside the actual powers of operation and it will remain possible for my right hon. Friend to continue to co-ordinate fuel and power policy in Scotland notwithstanding any provisions of this Bill. I can assure the Committee that the point is one which, although interesting to debate, is not of any real or vital importance.

Mr. Palmer: I take it that the hon. Gentleman will not overlook this fact. He referred to our Act of 1947, but he will remember that under that Act the chairman of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board is made a member of the British Electricity Authority, whereas, by this Measure, it is proposed to remove him. That link with the Ministry of Fuel and Power is removed by the Bill.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: That is only a link, or, in terms of electricity, one may call it a cycle, but it does not affect the principle at all—

A. C. Manuel: What principle?

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: —and coordination can still be carried on without that particular link. It is a matter which causes my right hon. Friend not the least concern and the hon. Member need feel no worse anxiety than I do in this connection.

Mr. McNeil: The Committee is indebted to the Parliamentary Secretary for his precise statement. I hope that I shall not misquote him if I say that he has made it abundantly clear—and has


done so frankly as his was the first frank intervention from the Government Front Bench on this subject—that the Ministry of Fuel and Power in no way parts with over-riding powers in relation to coordination.
But the Parliamentary Secretary went on to say that, for example, under this Bill the Secretary of State, through his authority, will be responsible for generation. The Parliamentary Secretary surely knows that those two statements are irreconcilable. He is saying, in effect—I think he is quite right in saying it—that so far as the activity of the South of Scotland authority dovetails into national needs and national purposes, that authority will be permitted to perform in conformity with the national Authority. That is the only sensible attitude to be taken.
The Parliamentary Secretary, who was technically so admirable—I mean that sincerely—was, of course, politically a little gauche because his right hon. and hon. Friends have been stumping the country and saying that that precisely is what the Bill did not mean. They have been trying to tell the country that this was a Gaelic revolution and that they were endowing an empire in the south of Scotland where there would be complete autonomy. I hope that I did not do the Parliamentary Secretary an injustice at an earlier stage by translating him improperly, but, of course, at that stage he was determined, quite understandably and rightly perhaps, to be politically adroit and to answer in terms of Tory head office propaganda.
The hon. Member for Kidderminster has elucidated an acceptable and sensible point. We cannot have generation of electricity for one area and one authority and not for another. The weakness is that we are breaking down the co-ordination which had previously been achieved and had to be achieved if the scheme were to operate. What will now happen is that the Minister of Fuel and Power will say to the Secretary of State, "Do not bother about these silly speeches. Come into the committee room and we will decide what is national policy." I do not want to be unfair to the Secretary of State—

James Carmichael: We cannot hear my right hon. Friend.

Mr. McNeil: I did not think it was a report I had to give to my hon. Friend. We have now seen the Secretary of State's political humbug and the political confidence trick performed not only by him but by some of his hon. Friends. Now that has been set aside and we have it stated quite clearly that the powers vested in the Ministry of Fuel and Power, by the Act to which I am not allowed to refer, are to remain with him and that nothing in this Clause is to alter that position.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Hobson: I must press the Parliamentary Secretary for a further explanation as, apparently, he is the target for tonight, and not the Secretary of State for Scotland. I regard the Bill as absolute humbug, but we are not concerned about rivalry between England and Scotland. Some hon. Members of the Committee have had something to do with co-ordination for many years, and know something about it from a practical point of view. We are concerned that between now and Report stage the Secretary of State will put into the Schedule those Sections of the 1926 Act which deal with "such functions." We do not like the words "such functions" and I ask the Minister, or the Parliamentary Secretary, the Secretary of State, or one of the galaxy of Under-Secretaries to give that undertaking, for which I think it absolutely reasonable to ask.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2.—(ESTABLISHMENT AND FUNCTIONS OF THE SOUTH OF SCOTLAND ELECTRICITY BOARD.)

Mr. McNeil: I beg to move, in page 2, line 25, at the end, to insert:
Provided that amongst such persons shall be one qualified as having experience of, and shown capacity in, the organisation of workers.
I do not think there is need for much discussion of this Amendment, which is an eminently reasonable one. It seeks only to ensure that this Authority shall conform to a pattern which has been set by other authorities. It would be utterly unreasonable if its composition did not include someone who not only had experience, but who was—I do not mean in official terms, but in reasonable and warm terms—a person who had the same


kind of idiom as the people to whom the Authority will have to address itself. We are not tied to the words in the Amendment, and I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to say, without more ado, that he is prepared to accept the substance of the Amendment.

Mr. Palmer: I wish to support my right hon. Friend in his advocacy of this Amendment. An extraordinary feature of this Bill is its drafting. It is a Bill of shreds and tatters, bits and pieces, and references here and there. Sometimes the reference is to the Act of 1943 and sometimes to the Act of 1947. In Clause 2, which is concerned with the establishment of a South of Scotland Electricity Board, the reference is to the Act of 1943. The Board is to consist
of persons appointed in accordance with the First Schedule to the Act of 1943.
It is true to say, if one looks at the 1943 Act, which established the Hydro-Electric Board, that there is no specific provision in it for an expert who is knowledgeable in matters affecting labour relations. There was such a provision in the Electricity Act, 1947, as in all the nationalisation Acts. In the 1943 Act, however, the provision was left very loose indeed.
It is extraordinary that this Bill should revert in this matter to the words of the inferior Act rather than that the model of the 1947 Act should be followed. The words we are using in this Amendment have been taken from the Act of 1947, and they are to be found in all the nationalisation Acts. I cannot believe that the omission was deliberate, but it is another example of a very bad habit of the present Government, because they made precisely the same kind of omission from the Bill to establish the Atomic Energy Authority which we have recently discussed in the House. We condemned that omission then, and the Minister responsible for that Bill accepted our condemnation by agreeing to our words.
I suggest that these words are sensible. They are in line with much existing legislation, and there is the precedent to which I have just referred of the recent Bill, on which the Government gave ground during the Committee stage. Surely a similar concession should be made here. We are not, of course, asking that there should be some delegate of the trade unions within the industry. We want someone—possibly a former trade union official, although

that does not necessarily follow, though in the main these appointments to bodies in the other nationalised industries have been men of great experience—with a broad range of knowledge of the everyday problems which arise in matters of collective bargaining and labour relations generally.
Taking the experience of nationalised industries so far, the trade union members who have served and are serving on the boards of those industries have proved themselves to be competent, able men who have brought much to the service of those industries. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not, by refusing this Amendment, lose a similar blessing in the organisation of this new authority.

Mr. Hector Hughes: I support the Amendment. One scrutinises the Clause in vain to find out what are to be the qualifications of the persons who will constitute the Board. The Clause provides:
There shall be established a public authority for the district …
and at the end of subsection (1) are the words:
consisting of persons appointed in accordance with the First Schedule to the Act of 1943.
The Clause does not specify what are to be the qualifications of those persons; the matter is left entirely at large.
In the interests of the Board, if a Board is to be appointed, it is worth appointing it well and properly and defining the qualifications of the persons who are to constitute it. What is to be their experience? What are to be their qualifications, their capacities? There is not a word about that in the Clause. Here is an Amendment which is specific and proposes that qualifications should be expressly stated.
There are other reasons why the Amendment should be accepted, as I hope it will be if the Government look at it not in a partisan but a responsible way. The Government want the Board to function well, they want to have the right persons on it. Why should they not specify what are to be the qualifications, capacities and experience of the men who will serve upon it? All that the Clause says is that the Board shall consist
of persons appointed in accordance with the First Schedule to the Act of 1943.


Who are they to be? What are to be their qualifications. There is not a specific mention of these anywhere. As my right hon. Friend has said, the Clause, like other Clauses in the Bill, is characterised by vagueness and indefiniteness, and it will be very difficult to administer. There are other tests that we should apply to a Clause of this kind, or indeed a Clause of any kind which sets up a board or committee. One test is how is it to be construed in the law courts, if it ever comes—

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): We have not yet reached the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Hughes: I do not wish to transgress, Sir Rhys. I have emphasised the point I wish to make, that this is a vague Clause, lacking in definiteness, and we consider that the Amendment supplies that concrete and definite quality which is lacking in subsection (1). I hope that the Government will accept the Amendment.

Mr. J. Stuart: If I reply now, it might help the Committee in dealing with the matter. The Amendment lays down that one person shall be
qualified as having had experience of, and shown capacity in. the organisation of workers.
It singles out one particular type of individual. I should like to explain to the Committee the reasons which prompted the Government to draft the Bill as it now appears. The hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) is not correct in suggesting that it is vague and not thought out. Indeed, it follows a precedent. As the Bill now stands, we followed the design or precedent of the North of Scotland Board, which has worked well in practice, and it therefore seemed wise to us to follow that precedent.
As the Committee well knows, the North of Scotland Board was set up under the Act of 1943 by the National Government. It happened that the then Secretary of State was a member of the Labour Party. Under that Act the Board consists of a chairman, with not less than four and not more than eight members appointed, and no provision is laid down as to qualifications. But there are today,

and there have been in the past, trade union representatives on it, because it is perfectly clear and obvious that in the appointment of any such board—in the new South of Scotland Board just as in the case of the North of Scotland Board —one would only appoint persons with qualifications suitable to make them useful and competent members of the Board.
The 1947 Act, on the other hand, provided that members of the Board should possess all sorts of qualifications. There is a list, which I need not read to the Committee. It specified commercial, industrial and financial knowledge, knowledge of the generation and supply of electricity, applied science, administration or the organisation of workers, but it did not lay down that so many or one of each should be appointed. It merely laid down that, in making appointments, the Minister would choose from such persons. I suggest that in practice the result would be much the same, namely, that obviously whoever had to deal with the appointments would choose from people thought to be qualified and suitable persons to be appointed.
8.0 p.m.
We understand perfectly the intentions of hon. Members opposite, but to accept this Amendment would mean that we were not following the precedent set either by the 1943 Act or by the 1947 Act. We should be creating a new precedent. The North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board has worked to the general satisfaction of all who have had to deal with it. The Board has carried out its operations with great efficiency and speed. I assure hon. Members opposite that, in making the appointments, we shall have in mind just such persons as they have mentioned, because that would be the right, natural and sensible thing to do.
In its present form the Amendment would not follow either of the precedents to which I have referred, and I suggest that we should follow a wise and sensible precedent by continuing in the South of Scotland the arrangement which has worked so well in the North.

Mr. Woodburn: It has been the practice, at least in Scotland, that on these boards there has been at least one person whose qualifications are similar lo those outlined in the Amendment. Attempts have been made to combine in one person experience of dealing with organised


workers and of local government, and very often that has been achieved. We would like an assurance that there will be no departure from that practice.

Mr. Stuart: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that that is our intention.

Mr. John Rankin: I do not differ from my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland (Mr. Palmer) nor from what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Sterling- shire (Mr. Woodburn)—

Hector Hughes: Nor from me.

Mr. Rankin: Far be it from me to ignore my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes). I thought I was pursuing the same line of argument as he pursued, and I do not disagree with him whatsoever. May I now proceed?
I recognise that these persons have to be appointed and that it is very difficult to appoint what we might call interests. Nevertheless, I am sure that the Secretary of State appreciates that people drawn from the working class, and who have gained their experience in the trade union movement, should have some say in the running of these organisations. While accepting that, I wish to mention a particular sector of the general working class movement, the Co-operative movement. While we recognise that persons from that movement were appointed to the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, nevertheless there is a feeling in the Co-operative movement that it has not—

The Deputy-Chairman: I find nothing about the Co-operative movement in this Amendment.

Mr. Rankin: An attempt is made by this Amendment to insert the words:
Provided that amongst such persons shall be one qualified as having had experience of, and shown capacity in, the organisation of workers.
My point is that people with that experience may be found in many sectors of the general working-class movement, including the Co-operative movement, which has received some slight but inadequate recognition in the past. I hope, therefore, that the Secretary of State will keep in mind that he need not necessarily select people from one strata of the public.

Mr. J. McGovern: I do not advocate that any sectional interest be represented on the board. In the past people have been selected who had practically no knowledge of the industry concerned. Many of them were completely inefficient, even in their own line of business. To suggest that a trade union leader should be selected is, in my opinion complete lunacy, though I would not suggest that the trades unions should be completely left out.
The procedure adopted in such selections is that a person who has held a post in the trade union world becomes a nominee for membership of these boards. Often such a person has retired, which gives the appearance, to use the common phrase, that it is a case of "jobs for the boys," and I am absolutely opposed to that. I urge the Secretary of State to take a wide view. If possible, the people selected to serve on these boards should be fairly young. They should be efficient and have some knowledge of the industry.
There are people who have not come from the trade union world and who have served with success. For example, Mr. Tom Johnston, the Chairman of the Hydro-Electric Board in the North of Scotland, was never a trade union representative, but he overshadows anyone from the trade union world. Though I disagree with him over many things I claim that his ability and capacity are exceptional. He has always made it his business to obtain knowledge about any position which he has held. To confine the selection in a narrow sense to members of the trade union world is wrong and would be liable to bring any nationalised industry into disrepute.
We should get away from the idea that all that is required is for a person to have held a position in the trade union world in order to make him a retired gentleman of leisure and capable of occupying these posts. We should look for people who can carry on the industry in an efficient manner, people who know something about the industry. We should not select them because they come from a narrow section of the community.

Mr. McNeil: I should be very unhappy if the Committee were left under any misapprehension as to the meaning of this Amendment. We would not ask the Secretary of State to accept an Amendment


which meant that because a man has been a trade unionist, or is aged or is retired and is of no distinction—and that sometimes does happen even in trade unionism —he should automatically become a member of the Authority.
We all agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) in his obvious concern for the efficiency of the organisation. From his extensive experience, which is greater than mine, I am sure that he would certainly be the first to admit that in the business of the generation and distribution of electricity it is most unlikely that efficiency will be secured unless there is on the governing body somebody with precisely the experience mentioned in the Amendment.
My hon. Friend chose Mr. Tom Johnston as an example of what an efficient chairman could do in such an Authority. He quite properly said that Tom Johnston had not come from the trade unions. I cannot recollect, however, that he was very far away from them. I am bound to say also that, as chairman, Tom Johnston has had the good sense to see that he had with him on the board at least three men who come from that class of people to whom we have referred. However, I am sure there is no quarrel between us.
Much as we value the undertaking given by the Secretary of State we hope that he will attempt to find a form of words which will meet the wishes of the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman was quite right in pointing out that, in a sense, we were here creating a precedent, but although we have selected one particular group of words we are not tied to those particular words. We have often heard the lecture about the good Secretary of State and the bad Secretary of State. I do not want to pursue that point here.
It would be better to find a means by which we had an insurance that by his experience and ability the type of person we seek should automatically find his way on to the Authority. My last word is to say how emphatically I agree with my hon. Friend's hope that in this Authority, as in others, there should be a high proportion of young men.

Mr. Carmichael: Tom Johnston was 60 before he was made chairman.

Mr. McNeil: I shall not argue that one should reach 60 before being made chairman. I am arguing that it is a great mistake if, irrespective of any qualifications, there are too many aged men on any governing body. It will be appreciated that in saying that I am not attacking the Government, although it may have some relevance. The Committee is very much agreed on this subject. No hon. Gentleman on the other side has opposed the substance of the proposition, and I hope that the Secretary of State will agree to think further about it. It would be helpful, make it a better Bill, and might set a precedent if the Secretary of State would do something.

Mr. J. Stuart: This short debate has served a very useful purpose, because it shows the difficulty of laying down in black and white exactly what is wanted in the way of an efficient, young and competent board. That is why I am still inclined, myself, to the view that it is better to follow the precedent which we are following in the Bill. I am, of course, quite prepared to consider this matter again, bearing in mind the difficulties which have been referred to in this debate.
I think the Committee would agree that one does not want too big a board. Big boards become too unwieldy and difficult to handle. I am very hesitant about laying down a long list of people who should be considered. As the hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) said, they should not be chosen from one strata of society alone. I have listened to the debate with interest. I think that it shows the difficulties of laying down hard and fast rules. I will look at the point again, of course, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not press the Amendment.

8.15 p.m.

Major W. J. Anstruther-Gray: I rise only to say that I hope my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will not feel that all hon. Members of the Committee are adamnant that he should go further than he has. He has assured the Committee that a precedent will be followed by which, whichever Government is in power, there will be every opportunity to choose from all the available suitable men there are, whether they are ex-trade unionists or whether they be old or young.


Surely one principle that any Government will follow is that those men shall not be drawn from one strata of society. I am sure that, having had an assurance from the Secretary of State, we should rest content.

Mr. McNeil: I am tempted to thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman at some length for his advice, but I will refrain. I am sure that we are all indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for his undertaking. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Manuel: We have to recognise that from all appearances our opportunities this evening will be most limited. For some strange reason which I cannot fathom, but which the knowledgeable people may perhaps be able to explain adequately, certain Amendments have been swept clear from the Order Paper. I feel that something should be said about the definite change in the purpose of this Clause as compared with that of the 1947 Act.
The greatest danger is that in Clause 2 we are throwing over the main conception of the 1947 Act. Clause 2 gives to the area boards functions similar to those of the central authority. That is the meaning of Clause 2 (2). It entirely removes what is laid down in Section 1 (6) of the main Act, which clearly says that the functions of the central board are to:
"(a) promote the use of all economical methods of generating, transmitting and distributing electricity;
(b) secure, so far as practicable, the development, extension to rural areas and cheapening of supplies of electricity;"
I want to dwell on the extension to rural areas and cheapening of supplies of electricity, because I believe that Clause 2 drastically curtails the objective laid down in the 1947 Act to extend rural electricity, and certainly its cheapening and the ultimate arrival at a uniform rate. The Act indicated that the more lucrative areas should help to pay for the poorer areas. In other words, price-fixing arrangements within one region ought to apply over the whole of the country. In the South of Scotland area, charges will inevitably increase under the new set-up. I see the Joint Under-Secretary shaking his head.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Commander T. D. Galbraith): indicated dissent.

Mr. Manuel: That is the wrong Joint Under-Secretary. It is quite clear from examining the Report of the British Electricity Authority for the year ending 31st March, 1953, that the British Electricity Authority had a net surplus of £5,824,452. Contrast these figures with the figures for the South-East Scotland Electricity Board and the South-West Scotland Electricity Board. The South-East Scotland Electricity Board had a surplus of £178,750 for last year, and the South-West Scotland Electricity Board had a deficit of £100,133. The two Boards between them therefore had a surplus of only £78,617.
I presume that hon. Members opposite, especially those representing rural areas, will have seen the Annual Report and will be aware of the figures. I should like to know whether they think that the rural areas should stand alone and pay their own way. Under the previous set-up, which it is proposed to alter by Clause 2, the surpluses for the whole area could be utilised in whatever way was thought fit by the British Electricity Authority. But now we are creating autonomous regional areas that must stand on their own feet.
If the Joint Under-Secretary can tell me that under this Bill some proportion of this £6 million profit made over the Border is to be available in the area that made a deficit last year, I shall be very happy to know of it, but common sense tells me that in my area in South-West Scotland, where we still need a great many rural electrification schemes and where there are many farms and cot-houses without electricity, if this development takes place in a situation in which there is already a deficit, obviously the price of electricity in that area will be increased.
I do not know whether there is anything amusing in this matter. It is not amusing to me or to the people in my constituency who have been crying out for rural electrification for many years. Under this new set-up they will have to continue to wait. My view is that the areas which are more fortunate geographically should help to pay for the less fortunate areas, and by the creation of this new authority, which is to have


full financial autonomy, this principle in which I believe cannot operate. It means that in one area the workman, whether he is employed in agriculture or engineering, making £8 a week, will have to pay 6d. or 8d. per unit, as against 2½d. in another area.
Already in the North of England, as a result of the surpluses which have been created, electricity charges are dropping. We are not having that experience in Scotland. The tendency is the other way. My whole case is that this state of affairs will be aggravated by this new set-up. This is not devolution for Scotland. This facade which has been produced by the Tory Party in Scotland is quite unreal, and the Scottish people are not going to thank this Government for so-called devolution which is going to cost them more to run their homes, to use the electric iron, to hear the wireless and see the television, and so on. Many homes, of course, still do not have these things.
I want to make this appeal against what I think is the break-up of the main purpose of the 1947 Act, which was to give a fair distribution in the whole of the country. The richer areas—richer because they were more densely populated—were able to get a lower price. The price-fixing arrangements ought to be spread over the whole country—

Mr. Nabarro: Nonsense.

Mr. Manuel: The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) says "Nonsense." He is supposed to be knowledgeable about electricity supplies. I should like him to forget party politics for a moment and to tell me this. Bearing in mind that in South-West Scotland, with all its rural electrification still to take place, which had a deficit in its 1953 accounts as against a surplus of £5,800,000-odd in the English area, does he not think that it would be better to have the financial responsibility spread over the whole country, and instead of allowing some rural workers, already on low wages, to pay 8d. per unit, should they not have the opportunity of paying 2½d., the same as is paid by people residing in more densely populated areas?

Mr. Nabarro: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. The whole of his speech appears to be based

on a complete misunderstanding of the arrangements which already exist as a result of the Act passed by his party— the Electricity Act, 1947—which created a situation whereby all the area boards were financially independent—not interdependent but independent one from the other—and each board was required to pay its way financially taking one year with another. Whether or not it is a good thing that a board which happens to cover a more densely populated area should subsidise another which is sparsely populated is a different issue.

Mr. Manuel: That is my issue.

Mr. Nabarro: It may be the hon. Member's issue, but if he is going to attribute any blame to anybody he must blame his own party, who put that Act of Parliament on the Statute Book.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Manuel: I do not want to take up much more time. I have made my appeal on this matter. I am certain that the conception of the 1947 Act was as I have outlined it, and that it was envisaged that there would ultimately be a standardisation of charges. That is clearly laid down in the Act. Even at this stage I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary will at least undertake to examine whether or not there is a case for setting up some sort of joint examining council to have a look at the different returns at the end of each financial year, pool their knowledge in order to decide where surpluses could best be spent, and work out a list of priorities.
I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary will give some consideration to the arguments I have put forward, and, if the forces arrayed against him are too strong, will at least try to provide for the rather innocuous examination which I have suggested, in the hope that it might do some good for knowledgeable people to get together in considering the problems which need attention within each area board.

Mr. Nabarro: In my intervention during the speech of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel), I ventured to remonstrate that his whole case appeared to be devoted to a plea for what is commonly called the postalisation, or complete standardisation, of electricity charges, irrespective of town or country areas or their relative populations. I claim that nothing contained in


the Clause will alter the position which has obtained since the nationalisation of electricity in 1947 in relation to consumer charges.
I also claim that nothing contained in the Clause will arrest or retard in any way the essential rôle of the South of Scotland Electricity Board, as it will be after the passing of the Bill, in its important task of developing electricity supplies in rural areas.

Mr. Manuel: Do I take it that the hon. Member is saying that nothing will now arrest the development of rural extensions in the South-West Scotland area, despite the fact that in comparison with other areas it had a deficit last year? If that is so, does he mean that the price has to be put up in order that capital development can be paid for by the annual loan charge applicable to the area? How far can we go on that line before we stop rural electrification because prices are too high?

Mr. Nabarro: As I mentioned earlier, since the Nationalisation Act of 1947 each area board has been completely independent, financially, of neighbouring boards. The hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Palmer), who is an expert in these matters, will readily confirm that fact.

Mr. Manuel: What about rating?

Mr. Nabarro: The South-East Scotland Area Board is in a weak position because it covers such a sparsely populated area, and is a relatively tiny board. I claim that it will benefit by the provisions of this Clause, for it will be merged as one integrated unit with an area adjoining it, namely, that of the South-West Scotland Area Board, which covers a much more populous area and has a much greater demand for electricity. The amalgamation of these two boards will make for efficiency and, in the long run, lower consumer charges.
If I have a single adverse comment to make about the provisions of the Clause, it is that it does not create a single authority for the whole of Scotland, which, I believe, will ultimately have to come. Scotland is in a unique position, of all the countries in the world, in the matter of electricity generation and supply. There is no parallel anywhere. There are no fewer than six methods of generating electricity that are either in being. or in

sight of being brought into being, in Scotland. I refer to them very shortly to give an illustration of the importance of Clause 2, which, by creating the two authorities for Scotland, is a stepping stone to the creation ultimately, I believe, of a single authority.
Today there are steam stations in Scotland, for example, of the modern type at Portobello, Edinburgh, and of the older type in Aberdeen and Dundee. There are water stations at Glen Affric, Tummel-Garry, in Galloway and at Loch Sloy. There are oil stations, for example, at Wick, Kirkwall, Lerwick and Stornoway. An atomic station is being built at Dun-reay. A peat-burning station is in course of construction at Altnabreac. I am sure you will be an authority on the matter of the pronunciation, Sir Rhys. I consulted no fewer than three Highland Members on the correct pronunciation of that name. A sixth means of generating electricity is the experimental wind station at Costa Head, Orkneys.

Mr. Woodburn: Has the hon. Gentleman included the gas turbine station at Dundee?

Mr. Nabarro: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. There is a further variation, sponsored as a result of the engineering capacity and ingenuity of John Brown of Clydebank. I claim that in all these diverse and alternative methods of generating electricity we have an electricity economy in Scotland which is quite different from that of any other country in the world. It is unique, and in those circumstances progress ought to be made at the earliest possible date towards having all those diverse forms of electricity generation placed within a single executive control and a single production, functional and operational board. This Clause makes progress towards that end.

Mr. Manuel: It does not.

Mr. Nabarro: Really? At the present time there is a British Electricity Authority Board for the South-West and a British Electricity Authority Board for the South-East, and an area board for distribution in the South-West and another for the South-East. There is the North of Scotland Board. That is five in all, but this Clause reduces them to two—very great progress towards simplification and unification. Ultimately they


should be reduced to a single Scottish electricity authority. For these reasons, and as I am a progressive soul, which is why I sit on these benches, I strongly and warmly commend my right hon. Friend on the Clause.

Mr. Hector Hughes: I want to return to the point which, Sir Rhys, you said would be more appropriately discussed on the Motion "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." I propose not to intervene in the debate between my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel), who made such an eloquent, constructive and important speech, and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro).
The objection I have to the Clause is fundamental. I adumbrated it a little earlier. This Clause is a fantastic example of legislation by reference and by adaptation. If the Lord Advocate were here he would agree with me that such a form of legislation is very objectionable, not only to the purists in the English language but to those who will have to administer the Clause, because it is very difficult to construe it and it will be very difficult to administer. Unhappily, the Lord Advocate is not here. He was here a little earlier, and he has gone.
This Clause could be put in a very simple way, and I beg the Government to take it back and redraft it. It has two subsections. One is designed to deal with the constitution of the board, and the other to deal with its functions. But the one which deals with constitution does not say a word, except by objectionable reference, about the qualifications of the members of the board, their capacities or their experience. It refers slavishly to earlier legislation, so that the Lord Advocate or anyone else who has to construe it has to have a whole library of books and to look them up to find out what the Clause means.
In the second subsection, which deals with functions, we find that the draftsman is a slave to phrases. Three times in the course of five lines he uses the phrase "in relation to "—"in relation to" this, "in relation to" that, and "in relation to" the third thing. It is very difficult to find out what the Clause means.
I deliberately say that this is a fantastic piece of drafting which accords with

the fantastic characteristics of the drafting of the remainder of the Bill, and I most earnestly ask the Government to take the Bill back, to reconsider it and to redraft it to make it a better Bill.

Mr. Palmer: I have not the competence to follow my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) into those legal deep waters in which he so successfully wades from time to time. I would prefer to bring the mind of the Committee back to some of the points made by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro).
As I made clear on previous occasions, I disagree entirely with his conception of a unified Scottish electricity authority. There is no kind of technical or administrative justification for it. But this Clause, of course, does not give that kind of authority. Indeed, I suggest that it gives to the country the worst of both worlds, because we are not to have the unified system which the hon. Member for Kidderminster advocates for Scotland nor are we to continue with the highly successful system of unification of bulk generation and transmission which we have had, since the passing of the 1926 Act, for the whole of England, Wales and Southern Scotland. It is my contention that the electricity generation problems of Southern Scotland are precisely similar to those of the rest of the United Kingdom, with the exception of the North of Scotland, where it is granted that there is a special case.
In my opinion, this Clause goes to the root of the mischief of the Bill itself. It breaks up at the Border, in the most arbitrary way, the unified system of the grid which we have had since the 1926 Act, and which was, of course, confirmed by the 1947 Act. It is interesting to reflect that at no stage in our discussions of the Bill so far have we had any technical justifications advanced for this change. Not a single independent technical expert has been quoted to the House or the Committee. I do not know whether the Joint Under-Secretary of State would say that the engineering experts of the central authority are in favour of the change. I do not think he can claim that they are. Certainly, he cannot say that the British Electricity Authority is in favour of it.
He may argue that such witnesses are biased witnesses; he may say that we


should not look for independence from them, but they are experts, and the only experts available in this country—unless we look to the consulting engineers who have had experience of this sort of thing abroad.
8.45 p.m.
I want to draw the Committee's attention to an article which appeared in the supplement to the "Financial Times" on 15th March. The hon. Member for Kidderminster knows it well, because he was a sympathetic if somewhat eccentric contributor to that supplement. This article is written by Mr. T. G. N. Haldane, one of the foremost consulting engineers in this country and a former President of the Institution of Electrical Engineers. His article deals with the integration of electricity supply, and it is extremely interesting. He quotes world and Continental experiences, refers to the coming cross-Channel connection and has this to say in reference to the Bill:
Complete integration,"—
he is very cautious about it, but his words are interesting—
as in the United Kingdom, depends not only on technology but more especially on political unity. Where such political unity does not exist, complete integration is no longer possible. In this connection, the effect on integration and economy of the present proposal to re-organise the electricity supply in southern Scotland and to create an additional authority is a matter which calls for careful consideration.
When the whole article is read, it refutes in general terms the whole case for this Bill.
Before the 1926 Act we had the Weir Report, before the 1943 Act we had the Cooper Report and before the 1947 Act we had, in 1935, the McGowan Report. I am not suggesting that in any of these reports—technical and administrative— there is any argument in favour of nationalisation or of any system of ownership. I agree with what the Joint Undersecretary said on Second Reading, that the McGowan Report did not advocate nationalisation of electricity supply.
The fact is that the 1947 Act, from the administrative and organisational point of view, was able to draw on the recommendations of the McGowan Committee. I suggest that for this change there is no such report available for us to draw on. I agree entirely with the case for decentralisation. I would agree with

any suggestion which was contained in this Clause for having more decentralisation of distribution. I think that the case for decentralisation of distribution is absolutely sound for the purpose of bringing distribution nearer to the consumer.
If this Clause had stopped short, as it could have done, at amalgamating the South-West Scottish Board with the South-East Scottish Board, I should have thought it sound. What I object to is its taking over for the new Southern Scottish Board from the Central Board—the British Electricity authority, previously the Central Electricity Board—which had functioned so successfully from 1926, to the great benefit of the consumers.
I am not suggesting that in future it would be impossible, under this Clause, to transmit electricity across the Border. I am not so fantastically-minded as that, but it does certainly mean divided responsibility. We shall have every kind of joint committee between the British Electricity Authority and the new Southern Scottish Board. I cannot imagine that that will make for efficiency or economy in administration.
As some of us said earlier this evening, if the Government are to do this kind of thing for electricity, thoroughly bad as it is, they should be logical about it and do the same kind of thing for coal, gas, petroleum and all the rest. If the Government did that, they would end up with two Ministries of Fuel and Power instead of one, as we have now. I do not believe that the Scottish Office has the experience to do this kind of work and to supervise it. The present system, with the efficiency that it has given us, would have been far superior. I hope that the Committee will reject the Clause.

Mr. Woodburn: We have had an interesting debate on the Clause. To some extent we are debating the principle of the Bill. On Second Reading we on this side voted against the principle of the Bill and we registered our objection to it. Some of the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland (Mr. Palmer) were among those for which we voted against the Bill.
We held, for example, that no technical justification was produced by the Secretary of State to show that these proposals were any advantage either for Scotland


or for Britain, and that on the whole nothing had been done to examine the problem before the Bill was brought forward. We pointed out that it had been brought forward for a purely political purpose, as a stunt, and that the Secretary of State had not even attempted to justify from a technical or efficiency point of view, or even from an economic aspect, the introduction of the Bill. We made our protest on that ground.
When we come to examine the Clause, my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland has reiterated his argument that it is better to keep generation and distribution separate. We all regret the absence of the hon. Member for Stockport, South (Sir A. Gridley), who has hardly ever missed an electricity debate in the House and for whose skill and expertness in that direction everybody has the greatest respect.
It was noticeable on Second Reading, however, that the hon. Member for Stock-port, South took a different point of view from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland, and he said:
… I say that the power stations should be under the control of those responsible for providing current to customers in their territory."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd February, 1954; Vol. 523, c. 440.]
Amongst technical experts, therefore, there is not a unanimous view on this subject; and I am informed that many technicians take exactly the opposite point of view to that of my hon. Friend.
I claim no expert knowledge of electricity, and after my hon. Friend's Second Reading speech I made some inquiries. As far as I can ascertain, no other country except ours divides generation from distribution. The Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario, which is a public body, controls hydro and steam stations and distribution. That Commission is soon to be charged with a very large development when the St. Lawrence Waterway development takes place, and the new power stations when developed will come under the Commission.
British Columbia and Quebec have big authorities, and I am told that in the U.S.A. the Tennessee Valley Authority and other authorities also have joint control of distribution and generation. In France, which has nationalised electricity, the board controls both generation and

distribution. I have not been able to discover any important country which has the system that we have. I am told that in this respect Great Britain is unique.
When the Labour Government nationalised electricity, it was recognised to be a problem whether it should be brought under one authority or there should be the two authorities. We must keep in mind that the grid was established long before electricity was nationalised by us in its general sense and that that organisation was already established. This has always been the practice in technical development. If progress is being made, it does not necessarily follow that everything will be changed. For instance, in building a new type of aircraft like the Brabazon, in constructing the prototype it is not fitted up with the new types of engine and the new fuselage. What is done is that the new engine is put into a Lincoln and tried out in that way, while the fuselage of the Brabazon is tried out with a well-known engine already in use.
So the Labour Government did not interfere with the established and well-known grid system, but proceeded to add to it the new nationalised distribution scheme. Those in the Labour Government responsible for this step recognised that the time would come when we would have to consider whether these two things should be married into one system. I am authorised to say on their behalf that even now they are not quite sure that the time has arrived. They think that the formative period is not yet exhausted. But the Government have secured the Second Reading of this Bill and, therefore, the principle is agreed to. We must now consider it within that compass.
Curiously enough, the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) dealt with a point that struck me as extremely important. Scotland is in many ways a part of this nation which has been used as a laboratory for trying out different systems and undertakings. There is no doubt that the Scottish people in general, whatever they may think of the technical advantage or otherwise of this Bill, are determined to retain their individuality in making contributions to the educational, social and general life of the nation. They do not want to be uniformly organised as English or British.
They want to have the distinct opportunity of contributing to the common pool from their culture, education, and administration. They are also convinced, rightly or wrongly, that they can do these things more efficiently than the English.
My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) was alarmed lest this scheme was going to increase the cost of electricity in Scotland. My opinion is that Scotland can generate electricity cheaper and distribute it cheaper. There is every possibility that the price of electricity in Scotland will be reduced.

Mr. Hobson: The factual statement is not true that the Scottish nation can produce electricity cheaper. The stations with the best thermal efficiency happen to be south of the Border.

Mr. Woodburn: I am coming to that, if my hon. Friend will wait for a moment. A good many of the stations in the South of England have been built since the war and the cost of constructing them has been greater than was the cost of building the old stations. The old stations may be inefficient and use more coal than they ought to, but when we compare one country with the other, it will be seen that the cost of electricity in Scotland is cheaper at the moment.
That is a thing which, like youth, does not last. Youth disappears, and these stations will disappear. When these old stations go, they will have to be replaced by large, modern ones. Under this Bill the capital cost of those replacements will no longer be borne by the Central Electricity Authority but by the Scottish organisation. When these new stations are built the question will arise, will the electricity be cheaper or dearer than in England? I do not propose to guess the answer, but there is the possibility, while we may benefit in the short run from cheaper electricity, that as a result of this Bill Scotland will have to pay more for its electricity in the long run.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Nabarro: As a matter of fact, the station in the United Kingdom today which has the highest thermal efficiency and the greatest load factor of any is Portobello, Edinburgh.

Mr. Woodburn: Nevertheless, taking the balance, a good deal of our electricity

in Scotland is still produced at old stations which will have to be replaced. When new stations are built, it does not mean that the electricity will be cheaper per unit, because the capital charges will be embodied in the price, whereas the old stations do not have to bear those heavy costs. I am informed by financial and technical pundits that this is a danger we shall have to face.
At present there are four organisations in South Scotland and there is bound to be an economy by merging them into one. For instance, there is an unnecessary duplication of administration because of the technical people employed in all of them. So far as opinion in Scotland is concerned, we feel we can accomplish both economies and improved efficiency by fusing those functions.
However, none of these things has been proved and the opinion of my hon. Friend may be justified, in view of his technical knowledge. At the moment there is an objection to having two- headed control throughout the country, and if we have an experiment in Scotland where this is under one control we may be able to prove whether that is better or whether the English system is better. If it does not work, so much the worst for us in Scotland, but in any case a use ful lesson can be learned for dealing with the situation in the South. There is no question that in Scotland there is a general desire that, so far as is reason ably practicable, we should try out our own ideas of administration. The Bill has been agreed in principle—

Carmichael: So was the Rent Bill.

Mr. Woodburn: That is true; and it will be carried, I am afraid. When this Measure is put into effect it will mean that we shall have to undertake, under the Secretary of State, responsibility not only for the administration and development of electricity, but also the financial responsibility. I do not know whether the Secretary of State has gone into this matter. I am satisfied at any rate, that this Bill was prepared without any prior examination. Once it has been agreed, however, there will be some advantage in the development and experimentation in Scotland.
I shall not go into the point raised by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) as to whether it should be


embodied in one organisation. The problem which arises is that the North of Scotland Board has functions outside the production and generation of electricity. It has also a social function to subsidise the Highlands. That difficulty would not be overcome by a merger under one Board because, even inside that, there would have to be separation of function between the North and South of Scotland. Therefore that is outside the scope of the discussion this evening.
I say to my hon. Friend, let Scotland try this out. He may be right and may have the satisfaction eventually of saying, "I told you so," but democracy means that we have the right to make mistakes. People who want to run their own affairs locally, even local authorities, undoubtedly sacrifice economic efficiency. Anybody could prove that he could run this country more economically by means of a great centralised democracy than by local government. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am sure that somebody could prove that economically local government is a wasteful system, but it gives an interest to people to run their own affairs and, whatever we think about Home Rule politically, Scottish people want to run their own affairs to the maximum without losing too much in the way of practical advantage. In this case we may sacrifice practical advantage, but I think that Scotland should have the opportunity to see whether it can make a better system of it.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Henderson Stewart): I am much obliged to the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) for the support that he has just given to the Bill. It is understandable that the hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Palmer) cannot quite comprehend the Scottish attitude to this Bill, but the right hon. Gentleman is quite right in saying to the Committee that, in effect, this is a piece of legislation in accordance with the general sentiment and climate of opinion in Scotland.

Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. I should like to be clear to what exactly we are lending our support. We, on this side of the Committee, opposed the Bill on Second Reading and now the Joint Under-Secretary says that it is given a general measure of support. All the

support that is being given, if any, is being given to Clause 2.

The Chairman: That is all that we are discussing at the moment, anyway.

Mr. Stewart: I was merely responding, I hope courteously, to the courteous remarks of the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire and was trying to say that the purpose of the Clause, as of the Bill as a whole, is to enable Scottish people, as far as it is reasonable, to manage such part of their business as seems proper.
The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) was concerned about the Clause because he felt that it was throwing overboard the main conception of the 1947 Act. The hon. Member for Cleveland said the same thing, but his conception of the Act was very different from that of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire had two things especially in mind. First, he said that the 1947 Act was aimed at extending supplies of electricity to rural areas and at what he called the standardisation of prices. He said that both those things were not being done now and that this Clause and the Bill diverted that process.
I know how interested the hon. Member is in the development of rural areas and I am glad to inform him that we are making considerable progress. He will recall the announcement made by the Minister of Fuel and Power last year that a substantially larger part of capital development would be devoted to the electrification of rural areas. That took place and the hon. Member will be interested in the actual figures. The total number of farms connected to an electricity supply throughout the United Kingdom in 1953 was 13,411, as against 11,268 in the preceding year, and of the 13,411 a total of 2,239 were situated in Scotland.
Another interesting calculation is that the Scottish figure represents 6.4 per cent, of all Scottish farms whereas the English figure represents only 4.2 per cent, of all English farms. So it would appear that we are now doing reasonably well. I am entirely in agreement with the hon. Member that we want to extend still further and more quickly the supply of electricity to rural areas. I can give him the assurance that it is the firm intention of my


right hon. Friend to do whatever is in his power to bring that about for the South of Scotland.

Mr. Manuel: The hon. Gentleman is not claiming that that had anything to do with the last Budget, is he? These extensions had been agreed to and work had been going on for many years previously. The actual connecting up did not emanate from the last Budget.
My main point was that we are making a radical change and the instance I gave was from Section I (6, b) of the 1947 Act, which contains the words:
secure, so far as practicable, the development, extension to rural areas and cheapening of supplies of electricity;
The subsection begins with the words:
In exercising and performing their functions the Electricity Board shall,
and this is the important provision—
subject to and in accordance with any directions given by the Minister.…

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Member is quite right, but he is now speaking on the second of his two points—prices— and I was coming to that question. I think he will agree that in the electrification of rural areas the fact is that we are progressing fairly well. The statement of the Minister of Fuel and Power of 19th June, 1953, indicated a very substantial easing of the restriction on capital development and that has had a good effect.
On the other point, the hon. Member wants a levelling out of prices and a lowering of prices, but, with great respect, I think he confuses what he calls standardisation of prices with standardisation of methods of charging. If he will look at the Section from which he quoted he will see that paragraph (d) says:
promote the simplification and standardisation of methods of charge for such supplies;
That is a very different tiling from standardising charges themselves.

Mr. Manuel: Read paragraph (b).

Mr. Stewart: I invite the hon. Member to look at the last Report of the B.E.A., where he will see that the Authority recognise, as I think my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster pointed out, that the areas are all different. In paragraph 224 of the

1952–53 Report it is stated that differences in levels of charge arise for differences in the various areas within the Authority. They say that that is because there are varying costs to the Board of making supplies available. There are differences in the diversity of use by consumers in different areas, there are differences in fuel costs at the stations.
The Report gives a whole string of reasons to show why areas cannot always be the same in their cost and, therefore, in their charges. As the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire knows, the sharp contrast that he offered on Second Reading of 8d. a unit as against 1s. l¼d. per unit might have been all right in other days, but it certainly is not a reflection of what is happening today anywhere in Great Britain to my knowledge. We have already moved into the stage where, over the whole country, there is a very fair uniformity, but there never can be complete standardisation and equality. I come to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro). Is the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire not satisfied?

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Manuel: The hon. Gentleman says "for the whole of Great Britain," but he is cognisant that we have still operating, in certain Highland areas, privately owned supplies. I have a relative who lives in such an area and the price which has been mentioned would be rather a surprise to him.

Mr. Stewart: I did not mean to include the Highlands. I had in mind the area of the B.E.A., from whose Report I was reading.
I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster. I thought he managed to get in his argument on his new Clause very cunningly and with great persuasion. I do not want to follow him in his interesting suggestion that there should be not two authorities in Scotland, but only one. It may be that he is right. There are many things to happen in the future in the case of electricity, and it may well be that that will happen, but we are not in a position to say "Yes" or "No" to that proposition now.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: Does that mean that present policy is what the Joint Under-Secretary is saying now, because the only basis on which


the hon. Member for Kidderminster offered his support on the Clause was on the assumption that this was a conscious step in a policy towards a single authority? It was the only pillar on which the hon. Member rested the whole of his case. If that is kicked away it means that the hon. Member cannot support the Clause any longer.

Mr. Stewart: I think that the hon. Member may leave my hon. Friend and I to settle our differences.

Mr. McNeil: With the greatest respect, I think it is being exceedingly discourteous to the Committee and robbing it of a great deal of entertainment if the Committee is to be denied a settlement of this dispute—

The Chairman: That may be, but it does not arise on Clause 2.

Mr. Woodburn: Do we understand correctly from what has been said by the hon. Member for Kidderminster that in the view of the Government this is a step towards doing away with the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board? That should be cleared up, because the rather ambiguous statement of the hon. Gentleman may cause some apprehension.

Mr. Stewart: Let there be no mistake about this. It is the Government's firm intention to maintain the integrity of the North of Scotland Board. All I am saying is that my hon. Friend invited us to look into the future, a very sensible and reasonable thing to do. I merely replied that it may well be that something on the lines he suggests may come about, but not now.

Mr. M. MacMillan: Then will the Joint Under-Secretary tell his hon. Friend that the one basis of his support for the Clause has now been removed by his statement that the Government are not moving consciously and deliberately towards a single Scottish authority, and, therefore, the hon. Gentleman's support in that direction is not needed.

Mr. Nabarro: Everybody is talking about me. You will recall, Sir Charles, that you found that you could not select my new Clause about a single authority, and I had to make a speech on Clause 2 without referring in too much detail to the single authority. I wish to make it

quite clear to my hon. Friend that the Unionist Party has been quite specific in this matter of the retention by the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board of its social functions and purposes for the regeneration of the Highlands. Will he allow me to quote from the Unionist Party policy, published in 1949? It stated:
This Authority would be responsible to the Secretary of State for Scotland, who would also retain unimpaired the special obligations and responsibilities in regard to the development of the Highlands and Islands which are now in his charge under the Hydro-Electric Development Scotland) Act, 1943."—

The Chairman: This has nothing to do with Clause 2.

Mr. Nabarro: Before my hon. Friend resumes his speech I wish to make it clear that nothing I said should be interpreted in any way as wishing to abrogate the very important social functions attributed by Act of Parliament to the North of Scotland Board.

Mr. Thomas Steele (Dunbartonshire, West): The Joint Under-Secretary has made a very important statement. Is he aware that he has completely repudiated his Leader, the Prime Minister, who made a speech in Glasgow in 1949, in which he said there would be a separate Scottish board for electricity for the whole, not just for the North, of Scotland?

Mr. Nabarro: Read the rest of it.

Mr. Stewart: It will be a pity if we get tangled up over this.

Mr. Manuel: We are not tangled.

Mr. Stewart: There is no difficulty at all. This Bill maintains the independence and integrity of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electricity Board. That is the policy of the Government and they intend to maintain it. Equally, we think it right that there should be a southern board with the same kind of independence as is possessed by the Board which we have had for many years in the North. If my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster likes to look far ahead, as he is entitled to do, and says to me, "Is there not a possibility that at some time in the future something may be achieved?" I say, "It is possible, but the policy of the Government today is quite clear and I do not see any joining up for a very long time."

Mr. McNeil: May we take it that the Committee can accept the assurance of the Under-Secretary that the Government have once more affirmed—as the Prime Minister did previously—that what they say at Election time is not necessarily what they are going to do?

Mr. David J. Pryde: Is it not dangerous to look into the future? One may see the result of the next General Election and become downhearted.

Mr. Stewart: It depends on the state of one's heart. We look forward with a happy heart to the next General Election.
I now come to the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes)—I have been attempting to get at him for the last quarter of an hour. The hon. and learned Member, as he was entitled to do, made his usual complaint about proceeding by legislation by reference. It is an old complaint. I have made it myself, as have other hon. Members, and if we could avoid legislating by reference it would be a very good thing. As the hon. and learned Member knows perhaps better than I, it is not easy to legislate without some reference to the past. As was stated on Second Reading, when this Bill becomes law it is the intention of my right hon. Friend to employ himself in producing a consolidated electricity Measure, so that we shall have that for which the hon. and learned Gentleman so reasonably asked, something we can all follow much more simply.
The hon. Member for Cleveland, to whom I have already referred, seemed to think—I am surprised at him, but perhaps I did not understand him properly —that on the passing of this Act a barrier would be erected along the Cheviot Hills, the boundary between England and Scotland, so that no longer could electricity flow one way or the other. I can assure the hon. Member if assurance be needed, that under this Act it is made abundantly plain that the South of Scotland Board may export to the B.E.A. and the B.E.A., alternatively, can export to Scotland, as happens now. That will go on happening. From the point of view of day-today administration nothing will be altered at all.

Mr. Palmer: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point. I did not suggest anything so absurd as that lines would be torn down, or anything of that kind. My point was that there would no longer be one unified control or organisation, that control will be divided, and that cannot be doubted.

Mr. Stewart: May I put it to the hon. Gentleman in this way? There is something in his view, but we claim that whereas there was formerly divided responsibility in Scotland, there will now be unified responsibility. Whereas the Secretary of State is now responsible for Northern Scotland but not Southern Scotland, in future he will be responsible for both. That strikes us as plain common sense and good administration.
Nevertheless, I was grateful to the hon. Member for his reference to the expert view. He claimed that there was no expert view to justify this Measure. He was answered by his right hon. Friend, who told the Committee that he had consulted experts and that many of them were of the view that this change which we are making—what he called this two-headed organisation and two-headed control—was, in fact, technically sound. I think that the right hon. Gentleman was right and, with respect, that the hon. Member for Cleveland was not right.
At any rate, for many of the same reasons as were given by the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire we have faith in this change. Scotland is determined to make what the right hon. Gentleman called an experiment. We are entitled to try it and I have no fear that it will not succeed. Scotland is unique in having so many forms of electricity, and is, therefore, in exercise, a place for experiment. It is perhaps a very good thing not only for Scotland but for the world that we are doing this.
I do not think that I need say much more. I believe that Clause 2—in a sense the essence of the Measure—is one which, in due course, all Scottish Members, including those opposite tonight, will feel is a good one. The day will undoubtedly come and is not very far away when they will agree that this action of ours tonight has been a good thing for our country.

Mr. Steele: For the record, may I say that in his reply to my hon. Friend the


Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel), the Joint Under-Secretary tried to infer that the British Electricity Authority was not desirous of standardising tariffs but only of standardising methods. I would, therefore, like to quote from the British Electricity Authority's Report, which says:
In substituting standard tariffs for a great variety of existing tariffs, the Area Boards have tried to minimise, as fairly as possible, the effects on consumer accounts of levelling out charges for similar uses of electricity. This, however, has been rendered increasingly difficult…
The latter part, of course, is what the Joint Under-Secretary used to refute my hon. Friend's argument. Had he read on he would have seen these words in paragraph 227 of the Report:
Retail tariffs are therefore under constant review, although the major task of standardisation is approaching completion.
In point of fact, that is what the British Electricity Authority is desirous of securing.
Further to the point made by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) and to the quotation I have made from what the Prime Minister said it is interesting to note what the official Unionist pamphlet "Scottish Control of Scottish Affairs" said, about electricity:
We propose a separate Scottish Authority for the whole of Scotland and not only for the North of Scotland.
Further, in his speech in North Edinburgh the Lord Advocate on 19th December, 1951—

Mr. Nabarro: On a point of order. Why was it out of order when I made that quotation and apparently in order when the hon. Gentleman does so?

The Chairman: It is out of order whoever does it. The hon. Member said he would be brief and I hope that he will be.

Mr. Steele: On 19th December, 1951, the Lord Advocate referred to
An integrated Scottish system which would combine the existing power stations and the Hydro-Electric schemes.
I have other extracts and if I do not quote them now, I am sure, Sir Charles, that you will take my word that they were on similar lines. Then, on 15th December, 1952, the Under-Secretary made a speech when, as has been underlined this evening, the Unionist Party repudiated

the Prime Minister and decided that they would have a separate Scottish authority.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3.—(TERMINATION OF THE FUNCTIONS OF THE CENTRAL AUTHORITY IN THE NORTH OF SCOTLAND DISTRICT AND DISSOLUTION OF THE SCOTTISH AREA BOARDS.)

9.30 p.m.

Mr. McNeil: I beg to move, in page 2, line 40, to leave out from the second "Board," to "shall," in line 42.
This is a very simple Amendment which we have put on the Paper so that we might give the Minister an opportunity to explain what is the intention in relation to the consultative organisations which have previously existed. The Committee is well aware that these consultative organisations, representative of the consumer, are valuable to the parent organisation. If the parent organisation has no easy method of ascertaining reactions to its proposals and of finding out whether it has failed to serve some section of the community, then of course it is lacking in efficiency. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power would be anxious to say, as his right hon. Friend has already admitted and as I think every Minister in that situation has admitted, that in times of near-crisis the consultative organisations have been of supreme value to the Minister.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. L. W. Joynson-Hicks): I only rise to point out that since we have come into power we have not had the opportunity of testing what the right hon. Gentleman has just said, as we do not have crises.

Mr. McNeil: Well, we are certainly going to have one in South Scotland. The hon. Gentleman is right inasmuch as the generation programme which the Labour Party of 1945–50 laid down had come to fruition when the present Government came into office, and that presented the Government with an opportunity. But German bombs did not give to the Labour Government the same assets as the Labour Government left to the Tory Party.
I did not want to introduce a party argument. I do not object to the Parliamentary Secretary interrupting me, but I was hoping that if he did not agree publicly, he would at least whisper to his hon. Friends that it is desirable that the consumer should have a quick and easy access—I am not tied to the method— to the generating and distributing authority, and that that organisation should be representative of all sections of the community supplied with electricity. I have no doubt that the Government accept that principle, and we have put down this Amendment so that we may be told how it is proposed to apply it.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: The right hon. Gentleman said that the Amendment was put down to enable us to explain our intentions, and I am grateful to him for giving me that opportunity.
I am sure that the Committee realises that, although we propose here to abolish the consultative councils which are now established, that does not mean that we want to abolish the idea of them. On the contrary, the Bill as now drafted compels the Secretary of State and the new Board to establish, as in the case of the Hydro-Electric Board, a consultative council for the whole of its area. Indeed, it is compelled to do so under the Bill as it now stands. We shall therefore have one consultative council for the whole area, and I hope that it will do all the good things to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred.
The Bill also provides that the consultative council, when set up, shall consider the appointment of sub-committees of itself. Our hope is that it will divide itself into two such sub-committees, one looking after the east and the other after the west of Scotland. In that way I think that we shall be able to maintain, as between the Board and its consumers, that close touch and consultation which is of the greatest value.
Scottish Members will know perfectly well that south-east Scotland does not regard itself as at all the same as southwest Scotland. The two areas have different views. One turns to Glasgow as its centre and the other regards Edinburgh as its headquarters. It is anticipated that the new Board will take account of that fact. That being so, the right hon. Gentleman can feel

thoroughly assured that all the benefits of these consultative councils, which are admitted and applauded by us all, will be maintained in the future.

Mr. Rankin: I was glad to hear the explanation of the Joint Under-Secretary of State, because it cleared my mind of a certain confusion created by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), who is no longer in his place. During the discussion of the last Clause, on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," he made the claim that one of the achievements of this hybrid Measure was to reduce five Scottish authorities to two. He claimed that that was a great achievement and, because of that fact, that the Clause and the Measure were worthy of our support, although we had voted against the Bill on Second Reading.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State has now destroyed the argument put forward by his quondam supporter, by pointing out that all that the Bill really does is to provide for two authorities instead of three. Only one authority is disappearing. The two South of Scotland authorities now merge into one. We now have two authorities in place of three, and not five, which existed formerly in the imagination of the hon. Member for Kidderminster.
The hon. Member was including the consultative councils, but even they are not going to disappear. The Joint Undersecretary has just informed us that one consultative council will take the place of the existing two, and he hopes that this, in due course, will change itself into two parts, by which time we shall be back to the point at which we started. That is a great Tory achievement, and if hon. Members opposite want congratulations on it I hope that they will get them from hon. Members on this side of the Committee, perhaps in a more obvious way than we have congratulated them so far.

Mr. McNeil: I would underline what my hon. Friend has said so adequately. The Joint Under-Secretary of State, it must be admitted, was candid. As the Bill is unravelled, it is seen to be a piece of misleading propaganda. It has been said that we are to have two authorities combined in one, but we are to have two executives under the one authority, and we are going to take two consultative councils, make them into one and then


divide it into two. The hon. Gentleman was very forthcoming. He referred to the South-East and the South-West, but what he meant was that the interests of Glasgow and Edinburgh consumers are not always complementary.
It would have been an interesting business to have seen the Glasgow and Edinburgh branches of the consultative council working together. I do not quite understand the machinery, and whether they would first of all meet in two little groups before formulating a report. I suppose that what will happen is that each will hang on to the appropriate executive and pretend that it is one authority. The Committee is indebted to the hon. Gentleman for his candour, if not for any administrative ingenuity. In view of the explanation he has given, however, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4.—(ORGANISATION OF SOUTH OF SCOTLAND DISTRICT)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Palmer: I have some difficulty in understanding why we have this Clause at all, and I think the Committee deserves an explanation of it. Earlier the Joint Under-Secretary of State said that I possibly could not understand Scottish feeling and Scottish electricity matters. Of course, I always approach discussions of Scottish matters with what I hope is suitable modesty and humility, but I cannot concede that this is anything but a Committee of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and it is my view that electricity is a United Kingdom interest. I make that point because I am about to say something to which objection may be taken on the ground that I do not know enough about Scottish feelings or Scottish interests.
When the 1947 Act was going through Parliament, it was said that the reason for creating two area boards for Southern Scotland, one for the South-West and one for the South-East, was that there was rivalry between Glasgow and Edinburgh.

Mr. Rankin: It is not true. We are very close friends.

Mr. Palmer: My hon. Friend has very great knowledge of these matters, but it was also said in electricity circles, although it may be contradicted now, that there were great company and municipal jealousies, and that all these things had to be resolved because, though we could change forms of organisation and of ownership, we could not change men and women. I thought that the solution in the 1947 Act was a mistake, perhaps, on the part of the Labour Government, although I supported them. It seemed a mistake to have two boards when one might have done. That is my view. Now we are to have an independent authority to combine the functions of the area boards and the British Electricity Authority for a limited part of the country.
There is no recent experience in this kind of thing to know what problems will arise, and I should have thought that it would have been best to have left the form of organisation and working to the responsible men and women to be appointed in due course to the Board, and to let them adapt and modify the system in the light of their experience and their own judgment, rather than to tie them to artificial geographical considerations. As the Committee may have gathered, I very much object to being tied to artificial geographical considerations.
9.45 p.m.
We have here a scheme which—and I hope I do not use too strong a word—is insulting to those men and women who are to be appointed to the Board. They are being treated like small children, with the Secretary of State as their domineering father—or, as one of my hon. Friends suggests, as their nurse. They are to submit schemes for an east executive and a west executive. The smallest electricity area in the United Kingdom is to have separate executives. I cannot understand why. There is no such arrangement for the British Electricity Authority, which is left to devise its own form of organisation as it thinks fit. There is no such arrangement for the area boards in England and no such obligation placed by statute upon the North of Scotland Board, which is often taken as our model in these discussions.
The Secretary of State is apparently to have the power to modify as he thinks fit the suggestions put to him by the Board


about these executives. I do not know what test he will use or what competence he or his Department have to make a judgment in these matters. Are the executives to combine on a very small scale the generation and distribution functions?
It seems to me that this Clause means that the administration of electricity supply for Southern Scotland will be done in future through the Secretary of State's office and not by the Board. I am sure that is not intended, and I suggest that the Clause and the subsequent Clause which is consequential upon it—and which we cannot yet discuss—are very ill thought-out. The Clause might well be withdrawn for further consideration at the next stage.

Mr. Woodburn: We put down formal Amendments to leave out Clauses 4 and 5. My hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland (Mr. Palmer) has put in rather pungent terms some of the reasons why we were puzzled to observe that, after we had gone through all this trouble to merge the boards into one board, we were then proceeding to create procedure to separate them again.
Would the Secretary of State tell us what is the idea of these separate executives? What are they going to do? Is it proposed to maintain in office those people who are in office now? Are there to be no economies of the sort we thought might arise when we discussed previous Clauses? The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) spoke of economies through the merging of five boards into two. Is that all to be nullified through the manufacture of extra bodies? If, as a normal part of the administration, the Board is to have administrations of different kinds in Glasgow and Edinburgh, what is the purpose of putting all this formally in the Bill?
Earlier, my hon. Friend the Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) pointed out that this was multiplying the number of boards after we had reduced it. I do not want to argue the matter until I have heard the Secretary of State's reasons, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland that once we set up a Board we should leave it to think out the best way of managing its business. Had the Secretary of State said that the Board would prepare a scheme for administration which would be embodied in an

order, there might have been some sense in these provisions, but to lay it all down in detail and then to have a scheme submitted to be modified by the Secretary of State seems a peculiar arrangement.

Mr. Pryde: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland (Mr. Palmer), I am very apprehensive of this Clause. The Joint Under-Secretary of State has told us that there is a difference between South-East and South-West Scotland. I do not intend to argue any differences of opinion here; I will deal only in facts, and it is a fact that in the first Report of the South-East Scotland Electricity Board it is clearly stated that this was the last area in which any attempt was made to bring power to the rural districts.
I should like to ask the Joint Undersecretary: Who is to determine the bias as between the South-East and the South-West? There will be two executives and they will be responsible to the Secretary of State for Scotland. The hon. Gentleman must bear in mind that there has been, more capital invested in other parts of Scotland than there has been in the South-East. Perhaps he will tell the Committee, because he has already boastfully told us the number of firms supplied and connected up with power during the last few years, how many applications have been made for a supply of power to the Board in South-East Scotland at the present moment.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I cannot at the moment answer the hon. Member, but I will endeavour to give him an answer, if not today, later.
I can understand the attitude of hon. Members in saying that they find it a little difficult to follow this proposal. They want to know what is the idea, and that is only fair and natural. I will endeavour to supply the answer. It is not very easy to answer questions about the functions and personnel of these two bodies because, as the Committee will observe, the Board has to produce a scheme to the Secretary of State, and until we have seen the scheme we shall not know quite what the Board intends to do.

Mr. McNeil: I am sure that I must have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman. Is the Committee being told that the Government are setting up two executives


whose functions they know nothing about and will know nothing about until the Board has produced a scheme?

Mr. Stewart: The right hon. Gentleman is sometimes a little too clever. I am not trying to be rude. I will come to the point he made in due course. I was saying that until the Board had produced a scheme, which it is obliged to do under this Clause, we cannot examine every detail of that scheme.
The intention is something like this. The Central Board will be responsible for control, planning and financial policy, and the determination of charges over the whole area. But the Central Board for the South of Scotland, knowing quite well that it is dealing with a very scattered area, may well feel that in this scheme it ought to have these two area executives to deal, for example, with distribution in their areas. Distribution is a matter where contact between the consumer and supplier of electricity is of the highest possible importance. There is no one in this Committee who has not had many letters from his constituents about getting a supply of electricity.
We know, therefore, how vital in the daily lives of the people is this matter of distribution. We anticipate that the Board, having thought the matter out, will say, "One of the functions of the East Scotland Executive, as of the West, will be to handle distribution and matters of that kind." I cannot think that that would not be a good idea. The hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Palmer) said that that had never been done before, even in England. That does not seem to matter. The right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) said that Scotland was entitled to experiment.

Mr. Woodburn: It would help us if the hon. Gentleman would state exactly what is meant by "executives." For instance, will the district offices in Glasgow, Kilmarnock, Maybole, Alloa, Edinburgh, North Berwick and all these other places, in their ordinary administration, have executives in the sense of the American use of the term? What does this term "executive" mean? Is it a board that will be called by another name, or what is it going to be?

Mr. Stewart: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman can think of analogies.

I can think of cases where boards of large companies divide themselves into sub-committees; or sometimes they are called executives. It does not much matter what they are called. We are not sticking to the word "executive." We are trying to ensure that the Board shall out of its members create two area groups, one group to be in charge of this area and the other group in charge of that area; but they are members of the Board, although they may well co-opt other people if they wish to do so. It will be the Board who will have ultimate responsibility, but the executives will have their special functions.
The hon. Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Pryde) asked a question on a good point. He said, "Where is the priority to be—east or west?" Of course, it will be with the Central Board, which will endeavour to extend its supplies of electricity fairly and justly over its area. Therefore, I cannot see any difficulty arising, although, naturally, there will be pressure from the people of one side or of the other.
That being, as far as I can give it without talking too long, a reasonably clear picture of the Government's intentions, I hope that right hon. and hon. Members opposite will feel able to agree to the Clause.

Mr. Palmer: The hon. Gentleman does not seem to have answered the main point of our case. There may toe a need in the organisational sense for having a divided control, tout why do it rigidly by statute and not leave it to the judgment of the Board?

Mr. Stewart: One answer would be that we think we know our South of Scotland and its people fairly well.
My right hon. Friend took the view, after much advice and great thought— this Clause and the next have been the subject of very great thought—that in view of the history and the present set-up of the areas, it would be a good thing to have this somewhat delegated authority for these executives.

Mr. Woodburn: What about Fife?

Mr. Stewart: Fife will be part of the eastern, just as Ayrshire will be part of the western, executive.

Mr. McNeil: The hon. Member must not think that he is boring the Committee or is under any compulsion to speak shortly. It is a baffling subject and the hon. Gentleman, whose adroitness we all admire and who always comes to any subject having studied it carefully, did not seem certain that he understood the purpose of the executives.
The hon. Gentleman tells us, for example, that the Secretary of State having carefully considered the position of these people and realising the difference between the south-west and and south-east, thought it better to give to the Board the opportunity of forming this body, whose structure I will try to examine. But the Joint Under-Secretary's tenderness seems suddenly to have deserted 'him, because at a later stage we learn that the Secretary of State reserves the power to himself to make modifications in any fashion he likes, without consultation.
Let us have it one way or the other. If we have the Secretary of State, assisted by the Joint Under-Secretary, shuffling round all the villages, talking nicely to town clerks and saying, "What would you like us to do gentlemen?"—if that is a necessity for permitting this strange operation—I should not think that it would make for good administration or even for vote catching, which, no doubt, it is designed to do. The Secretary of State cannot dress himself up as Red Riding Hood and the wolf at the same time. He can arm himself with powers to do just what he likes with these poor little consumer Red Riding Hoods about whom the Joint Under-Secretary is so concerned.
10.0 p.m.
Let us see whether I understood what the Joint Under-Secretary said. He told us that it was necessary for the Government to unite the two organisations in this area into a single organisation for the business of generation and distribution. Having said that, he went on to state that there may be problems of distribution— presumably there are problems of generation, too—and this single authority is to have the power divided into two.
The Joint Under-Secretary went on to point out that because there are financial matters, the Board would lay down the general policy, but other functions might

be delegated to what I may term sub-authority boards. It is difficult to understand the position. If the policy is to be laid down by the Board, then no other organisation can make policy. If the job of these two sub-authorities is to supervise administration, one would have thought that that was something that could be done by the Board itself, which is the policy-maker, or it could be done by the area technicians. Would it not be better for that organisation, which the Joint Under-Secretary of State says is to be in close contact with the consumer, explaining his needs and making technical provision for him, to do this job, because it is the technicians who do it in every other part of the country?
The truth is—and I have already predicted that it would come out increasingly and clearly as we took the Bill Clause by Clause—that the Government, having made one pledge and then deserted it, have produced this piece of humbug and said, "It is an autonomous body." When they looked closer at the scheme they found that for distribution purposes it could not be autonomous. Then they said, "Here is one authority with powers; not quite one authority, but two authorities. There are some limitations in their powers, but outside those they have power to carry out a policy."
What is the policy? I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary will tell us, but if I do not misunderstand him the Board is to be given the power to delegate what it likes to these two sub-authorities. It is an extraordinary state of affairs. The truth is that the existing personnel of the two authorities and the existing senior executives are to run the show that they have been running, and the Government have written Clause 4 into the Bill to try to make the operation one and disguise from this Committee and the public what the position really is.

Mr. Rankin: When this Bill was at its Second Reading stage, I happened to discuss it with a person in authority in the South-West regional area. I asked him for his opinion of the Bill and he said he saw no reason for it. The more I listened to the Joint Under-Secretary of State, the greater the reliance I place on the opinion which that gentleman gave me. It is as clear as daylight that all that is happening here is that one authority or, if the Committee prefers it, two authorities are


being knocked down. Under another guise those two authorities are being restored because executives are to be created. The Joint Under-Secretary of State has said that he is not thirled to the word "executive." Are we to take it, then, that on Report the hon. Gentleman will move an Amendment? Will he' tell us tonight what he will do about that word?

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Do not let us get mixed up about this. I was being pressed about the meaning of the word "executive." I tried to explain it and said that I was not tied to that word. If the hon. Gentleman has a word which may appeal to us more, we shall be glad to consider it.

Mr. Rankin: That is just the difficulty we are in, because paragraph (a) refers to the executives as being—
… one for each area, as may be specified in the scheme; and
(b) for the delegation to those executives of such of the functions of the Board as may be so specified.…
We have had no indication tonight as to what functions have to be specified. I have tried to follow the hon. Gentleman but he has not given me any indication of them. Farther down in paragraph (b) we are told that the functions which may go to those executives will not be functions that relate to general financial control or that apply to electricity charges.
May we take it that these rather unreserved functions will not be delegated by the Board to the executives? Apart from administrative functions, I understand that the generation of electricity, the distribution of electricity and the charge for electricity are the functions of an electricity authority, and two of those are specifically reserved to the new South of Scotland Authority. Therefore, the only function that is to be assigned to the two executives is that of the general distribution of electricity.
Will they have any other function? I take it that they will say to the parent body, "There is a certain area which is not receiving the distribution which it should be getting." What else will they do? Before we approve of this Clause we ought to have a much closer acquaintance with what may be the functions of the executives which are to be elected. We shall not have that, however, and I

honestly fail to see the purpose of the Bill. If the Bill works, it will take us back to the position which it was intended to alter and will not create something newer and better. We might as well have left the South-East and South-West Boards in their present position, because if the executives mean anything at all, that is the position to which we are returning.

Mr. J. Grimond: I hope that the Government will look at this matter again before the Report stage. Some of us were mystified when we read the Clause for the first time, and my mystification has increased rather than diminished since then. I cannot understand why the Clause should be compulsive. It may be desirable to leave power to the Board to set up these executives, but under the provisions of the Clause they are compelled to do so. It might be said that we do not need the Clause for this purpose at all. It has been argued by the Government that one of the advantages of the Measure is that it will allow experiments to be made in Scotland. By all means let us have experiments, but let us leave it to the Board to think out the right experiments and make them.
I do not see why the Board should be bound to this set-up. Some of the advantages that might flow from the Bill include greater efficiency and reduction of staff and costs, but under this Clause we may find that all that we shall get will be the same organisations running under new names with no advantage in greater efficiency or lower overhead costs.
The Board might come to the conclusion that it does not want to bind itself to a geographical basis. It might, for instance, want to have a special committee to deal with rural electrification. It is not clear why the Board should be tied to a geographical basis, nor is it clear what that geographical basis will be.
The Bill refers to east and west areas, but those areas are not defined. Is it intended to have the old areas all over again, or is it open to the Board to define new east and west areas and, for example, to set up an executive in Fife? It seems to me that the objects of the Clause are still extremely obscure. The Committee should hesitate to write into the Bill a Clause which gives the


Board power to set up executives for unspecified functions in unspecified areas for unspecified reasons.

Mr. James H. Hoy: I listened with great care to the Joint Under-Secretary. His explanation must be regarded by the whole Committee as unsatisfactory. One of the strangest things that he said was that these executives might co-opt members. That seems a most extraordinary proposal. Does it mean that the executives can be set up and that then they can co-opt some other people to help run the business of the Board? This seems to be a very loosely drawn proposal.
Before the Government drafted the Clause they must have had some reason for providing for the creation of these executives. The word "executive" has only one meaning and it is no use the Joint Under-Secretary saying, "I do not care whether the word is executive or something else." When the Bill is passed the word in the Act will be "executive." We have had various interpretations of its meaning today.
If the Government felt that executives were necessary they must have felt that those executives would have specific duties. It would appear that, with two exceptions, they might even control policy, outside general financial control and general control of charges and supply. With those two exceptions the executives might have some policy control within their grasp.
10.15 p.m.
We simply could not co-opt people on to them to deal with policy. Perhaps the Secretary of State will be able to tell us how many executives were his advisers thinking of when the Bill was drafted and where they would be situated. What were to be the functions of the executives? It is no good setting them up unless there is a job for them. The Committee is entitled to expect an explanation now from the Secretary of State of what the Clause means. It may be that he will not be able to give an explanation. If so, it would be better if he would say that he will think it over and take back this Clause and the succeeding Clause.
Both Clauses require further consideration. Many Governments have

taken back a Clause of a Bill for re-examination. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot give the explanation the least he can do is to say that he will take back this Clause and Clause 5 and present them again on Report.

Mr. J. Stuart: I think the Committee is making rather heavy weather of what does not seem to me to be a very intricate problem. As the Joint Under secretary said, a great deal of thought has been given to the matter. Today there are two boards. In altering that position and drafting the Bill, after very much thought, it was decided that the best arrangement would be simply to have the South of Scotland Board. But all Scottish hon. Members know that there are considerable differences in development, outlook and life between the eastern area of Scotland and the west—

Mr. Pryde: What are they?

Mr. Stuart: I have only just started my reply and I will say what they are if I am allowed to continue. There is the highly industrialised area of the west, while in the east there are the wider agricultural areas stretching up the east coast. With these differences are coupled differences in outlook. It seemed, therefore, sensible to establish executives which would be in a position to be closely in touch with the consumers, and to have an executive for the west and one for the east. In the whole of the organisation what seemed to have been ignored entirely is the interest of the general public, the consumer of electrical current throughout the country. The sole aim and object of this suggested organisation is to establish boards or executives in the east and in the west which will exercise certain functions delegated to them by the South of Scotland Board.

Mr. Woodburn: In order to help us a little on this—

Mr. Stuart: I am doing so—

Mr. Woodburn: The right hon. Gentle man is pointing out the great importance of an organisation for the east and an organisation for the west. That existed under the 1947 Act—

Mr. Stuart: I know; I said so.

Mr. Woodburn: What is the point of abolishing that?

Mr. Stuart: I was explaining that after very careful thought, before introducing the Bill, we decided that the best thing was to have one board in the South of Scotland and one in the North; but that, in order to keep contact with the con sumer—because, I repeat and insist on repeating, it is in the opinion of the Government their duty in handling the generation and supply of electricity also to give some little thought to the person who has to pay for the stuff when he gets it—

Mr. Manuel: rose—

Mr. Stuart: I really would like to complete several sentences on what the whole of this debate has been about.

Mr. Manuel: I appreciate the courtesy of the right hon. Gentleman in giving way. The whole point of his remarks is that these executive councils are necessary to keep contact with the consumers. Surely he is aware that consultative councils are already in being.

Mr. McNeil: No, they have wiped them out.

Mr. Manuel: They are sufficient for this job, and the Secretary of State's contention now is that he is merely re-creating what he has wiped out.

Mr. Stuart: If I were allowed to complete what I started to say, I might be able to get to the end of the story.
It has been made perfectly clear that financial control and general policy will remain in the hands of the South of Scotland Board, but there are questions of distribution and other problems in particular areas which have to be considered. The hon. Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Pryde) was talking about farms in his constituency which should be linked up. We all have these problems in our constituencies; my own happens to be in the area of the North of Scotland Board. We feel that an executive in the west and one in the east, with certain functions delegated to them, provide the best way of handling such problems. I repeat, however, that financial control and general policy will remain in the hands of the new South of Scotland Board.

Mr. McNeil: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain to the Committee why, if it is now desirable, as he puts it, that

certain executive powers should be devolved to the east and certain executive powers to the west, does he not allow the situation to remain exactly as he presently describes the situation as he wants it to be?

Mr. Stuart: I said that we have come to the conclusion that the best set-up is to have two, not three, area boards in Scotland. There has to be a solution of some sort and if we had reached a solution the other way round from that in the Bill, I have no doubt that we should have been criticised. When there is a central authority—as when right hon. Gentlemen nationalised transport—area boards or consultative councils are needed to keep in touch with the localities. We want to strengthen and improve that aspect in Scotland. We think that the main South of Scotland Board, with executives in the east and west to look after matters of consumer interest, will provide an efficient and workable solution.

Mr. McGovern: With the best will in the world, I must admit that I cannot follow what is intended by this proposal. Two attempts have been made from the Government Front Bench to give us some knowledge of what functions it is intended to delegate. The only possible explanation of the speeches we have had is that the Ministers do not really know what those functions are to be. Surely it is a very simple proposition to explain.
The se matters come under managerial functions and should not be included in the Bill at all. The Board should be given power to appoint people responsible for doing the job. It looks as if behind the Board there are to be other people, smaller boards, lesser lights that are to be appointed. I submit that no Member of the Committee can reasonably be asked to accept the explanations we have been given, and vote for the Clause.
Even as one who believes that the Bill is going a certain way along lines that he desires, I say that no explanation has been offered so far by the Secretary of y State or the Joint Under-Secretary on this matter. Surely they can tell us how many people there are to be on these executives, what are their functions, what is the job that they are to do? We may even be entitled to ask what is to


be the salary in order to decide whether they are people of responsible character.
I repeat that the only explanation of the two Ministerial speeches to which we have listened is that neither speaker knows what the functions of these executives will be. If that be so they should admit that the plan has not been properly thought out, and that later they will be in a position to provide a proper explanation. I do not feel justified in voting for a Clause of this description which has not been properly explained.
I urge the Secretary of State to define the position and what these individuals will be required to do. Surely we could be told that in plain and simple language.

Mr. Manuel: After the two speeches to which we have listened from the Government Front Bench, it is increasingly clear that we shall not get much further information about the duties of these executives. It is clear from Clause 4 (b) that they are not to have anything to do with the general financial control or the control of the charges for the supplies and services provided. That was made clear by the Joint Under-Secretary.
The Secretary of State now tells us that these executives are needed as a cushion between the Board to be set up for the South of Scotland and the consumers. We have had consumer councils in the past, comprising people drawn from the local authorities who, in the main, were unpaid. They did excellent work in keeping in contact with the ratepayers in their respective areas. From my experience as a member of the Ayrshire Electricity Authority, under the old set-up prior to the 1947 Act, I welcomed that most heartily.
I wish to add my appeal to those already made to the Secretary of State to consider Clause 4 again. The Joint Under-Secretary said that the executives would comprise in part members of the Board itself. I do not see where authority for that is given in the Bill. Perhaps I could be told if there is any indication at all that the members of executives shall be drawn from the personnel of the Board to be set up for the South of Scotland.
Unless I am gravely mistaken, anybody who reads the Bill would assume that the executives will comprise people outwith

the Board altogether. If they are to be drawn from the Board I cannot see the sense of it. I hope, therefore, that on Report we shall have an opportunity to examine this matter further, and that the Secretary of State will oblige us with more information on the subject.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Woodburn: The Secretary of State has heard much of the discussion upon this Clause, and he must be conscious that nobody is clear what it means, or why it is necessary to incorporate it in the Bill. I see no reason why the original suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland (Mr. Palmer) should not be adopted, namely, that within 12 months the Board should lay before the Secretary of State a scheme for the administration of its area. I cannot see why separate boards should look after Glasgow and Edinburgh respectively, while Fife and Clackmannan, just across the river from Edinburgh, should be left without any administrative executive.
It would be a simple matter, if the Board had to survey a big area, for it to decide to have more than two executives. It might decide to have half a dozen. The Secretary of State would make the Bill much tidier and much better by withdrawing everything in the Clause from "providing," or amending the whole thing and making it much simpler by excluding any reference to administrative executives. It is to his interest to try to make progress, and I respectfully submit that he should accept my hon. Friend's suggestion, or tell us that he will look into the matter before the Report stage to see whether he cannot tidy this matter up and put it on a more businesslike basis
There is no definition of who is to specify the controls. My hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) expressed the general sense of the Committee when he said that none of us knows where he is, in spite of the explanation which has been given. The right hon. Gentleman must agree that that is an unsatisfactory way for a Clause to go through, and I hope that he will reconsider the matter. If not, I promise him that we shall take every opportunity to see that the matter is raised in the proper manner on the Report stage.

Mr. William Ross: I had hoped that we would have got some information from the Secretary of State on this matter. He says he has given it, but the Committee is very dissatisfied with what he has said. I doubt very much whether he has been listening to the arguments. The Government are pushing through these Clauses, and they must have something in their minds as to what they want them for. All we ask is that we be told the reason for this provision, how these two new authorities will be composed, and what their functions will be. We have had nothing but vague phrases from the right hon. Gentleman so far.
Only two things are clear about the Clause. First, there are to be two executives. Secondly, there is to be one for the east and one for the west of the South of Scotland. We are told that they are to have certain functions. We have asked repeatedly what those functions are. The Bill says that there is to be no general financial control, which implies that there is to be some other kind of financial control. If so, how much is there to be? The same consideration applies in the case of charges. There is to be no general control of charges, which means that there will be some kind of unspecified control.

Mr. J. Stuart: It is fairly obvious that the degree of control they will have is what the South of Scotland Board allows them.

Mr. Ross: Does that mean that the Secretary of State is simply going to hand over the Clause as it is to the Board and tell it to carry on, without giving it any guidance at all?

Mr. McNeil: The right hon. Gentleman does not know his own Bill. He has said that he keeps for himself the power to modify these schemes in any fashion he thinks fit.

Mr. Ross: Here the Secretary of State claims the right to modify the schemes. We know he has departed from his original idea, and yet he cannot tell us what his new idea is. I am coming to the conclusion that he just does not know, and that it is a piece of pure humbug.
There is one thing which is clear and it is something which should not be in the Bill at all. If the right hon. Gentle-

man is trusting these executives to do the work why does he say that there should be one for the east and one for the west? That is why I say that because he is making a show of doing something but is departing from the set-up, this is just political window dressing. He states that there are great differences between east and west in development, outlook and life. Of course there are not. If one takes a longitudinal division of Scotland one does not get the same degree of interests between east and west chat one would get if one divided the south of the country latitudinally.
The south of Scotland is not Glasgow and Edinburgh. If the right hon. Gentleman considers the south of the country he will find that it is a hill-farming area right across: my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Pryde) mentioned it. There is some reason for grouping that part together, and, for the same reason, grouping the industrial areas of Glasgow and Edinburgh together. There is no justification for dividing them into east and west. What are we going to get out of this proposal? Merely the same set-up. If the right hon. Gentleman will apply himself to this matter he will accept the offer to withdraw the Clause without any final decision being taken tonight, think about it again and bring forward a new Clause on the Report stage.

Mr. McNeil: I plead with the Secretary of State to answer some of the questions put to him. The Committee is scarcely being treated with courtesy, and it is an unusual experience to find the right hon. Gentleman, who is always so genial, being a little testy and crotchety. Here are some of the questions to which we do not know the answers. Is it, as the Joint Under-Secretary said, competent for the executive to consist only of members of the authority? Are the executives to be comprised of members of the authority, plus a number of people whom they choose to co-opt, or will that be specified in the scheme?
Are the members to be whole-time, or part-time? Are they to be paid, and at what rate? What financial powers remain with the executives? What variations can they make to charges laid down by the Board? What alterations can they make in the distributive, arrangements set out by the Board? Are the members to be actual technicians, or


actual operators, or do we assume that their functions are completely at the policy level?
As one of my hon. Friends said, if they are managers it is reasonable to call them managers. Do not try to make them managers and also policy makers. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that we are not being unreasonable in asking for some hint of a reply. Moreover, if he does reserve some powers to himself he must have a reason for doing that, some fears or eventualities he contemplates. Will he tell us what types of eventualities he is contemplating? We do not expect him to tell us in detail. What we ask is that he should tell us broadly what his attitude is to the five points I have put. If he thinks we are pressing him unduly, let him take out the Clause, and bring it back at a later stage in a more precise form.

Mr. J. Stuart: I would say finally that the schemes for the setting up of these executives have to be drawn up and approved, but that that work has not yet been undertaken because the South of Scotland Board is not yet set up. The Bill is only at Committee stage. I think the suggestion that the executives should be set up under the Board is a perfectly sensible one. We have given a great deal of thought to it. I cannot say what the schemes will contain until they have been drawn up. I hope that the Committee will now be ready to agree to the Clause.

Mr. McNeil: Perhaps that is a reply. I doubt if it is. Perhaps I am being unreasonable, but I would say to the right hon. Gentleman that it is disingenuous for him to say, "I cannot comment on the schemes until I know what they are," when he is reserving powers to himself to decide those schemes. If the Secretary of State feels he must reserve certain powers in relation to those schemes what is it he thinks that the executives must at least do and what does he think they must in no circumstances do? There must be some reason for reserving these overriding powers.
It is surely not unreasonable for us to put those simple questions. What are the functions the Secretary of State has in mind that must be discharged by the executives? What are the functions which the Secretary of State, after this

full consideration to which he has drawn our attention, thinks the executives must in no circumstances undertake?

Mr. Henderson Stewart: It is in the Bill.

Mr. McNeil: The Joint Under secretary of State says the powers which the Secretary of State reserves to himself—

Mr. Stewart: That is not what the right hon. Gentleman asked.

Mr. McNeil: It is what I asked. I asked the Secretary of State to tell us what functions of the executives he has decided must be discharged, that he retains power to direct shall be discharged; and what are those they must not discharge, that he retains power to direct they shall not discharge.
The Secretary of State says the scheme comes before Parliament, but is he telling me—of course, I shall accept his word— that it is his intention no scheme shall be approved except with Parliamentary authority? That is not how I read it. The right hon. Gentleman said some thing to the effect that the scheme had to be made, and had to be laid—

Mr. J. Stuart: No. Approved by the Secretary of State.

Mr. McNeil: It is in the Bill, of course, but I wanted to make sure I was not doing the right hon. Gentleman an injustice. It is a little odd that he should say to the Committee, "Please accept my word that this is the answer. I cannot tell you why it is the answer, but do take my word, because in the end I have to approve the scheme." If he wants us to sustain his power of approval it would be reasonable for him to tell the Committee on what ground he would offer his approval or withhold it.
I do not think the Committee has ever been treated in this fashion before. We are told that this is a great novel, bubbling idea of which the Government are the architects. When we ask questions about the design it looks as though we are being rude, or impertinent. This is a Parliamentary Committee, and it is quite usual for a Minister, in Committee, to deal with questions put to him in an attempt to assist the Committee to understand the Bill. Perhaps we are being stupid, but I do not mind being


thought obtuse if I am trying to do my duty in understanding a Clause. We should be glad if the Secretary of State, or the Lord Advocate, or the Joint Undersecretary would give us an explanation. If, alternatively, we were asked for further time for consideration of the points we have raised, we should not consider that unreasonable. It is certainly unreasonable, however, for the Secretary of State to seek to steamroller this Clause through without giving us an explanation.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Woodburn: We have had a long discussion. I want to say, in reinforcement of my right hon. Friend's observations, that I have been in the House a long time and I do not remember an occasion when a Minister has treated a Committee as the Secretary of State has done tonight. He must admit that my hon. Friends have put their points reasonably and courteously. We have now reached a point where the Secretary of State apparently is going to wait for this Question to be put to the Committee. I see no purpose in continuing to press him to say anything. Obviously he is unable to say anything or is refusing to do so, which is discourteous to the Committee. If he is unable to give an explanation he could at least say that he will look into the matter and clear it up.
We did not put down Amendments to this Clause because we took it for granted that there was some reasonable explanation. I challenge hon. Members opposite to say that they have the slightest understanding of what it is all about. We do not want to prejudice our right to amend this matter on the Report stage. Therefore, we are not going to divide on the Clause. As it is unintelligible we intend to put down Amendments for the Report stage, and to take the opinion of the House then.

Mr. Hector Hughes: When discussing the Question that Clause 2 should stand part of the Bill, I had to criticise its drafting. I have the same kind of criticism to make of this ridiculous and fantastic Clause. We see these astonishing words at the beginning of it,
Within 12 months of the coming into operation of this Act, or such longer period.…

What does that mean? It means, within 12 months of the coming into operation of the Act or not within 12 months of the coming into operation of the Act. It is a ridiculous piece of draftsmanship, and I hope the Minister will take it back and reconsider it.
Then we come to the statement that
the South of Scotland Board shall prepare and submit to the Secretary of State a scheme…
There is more verbiage. No one with proper knowledge of the English language would commit himself to such phraseology. Then we come to paragraph (a),
for the setting up, for the east and west areas of the South of Scotland District, of such executives, being one for each area…
that is, one for the east, and one for the west. Why repeat it?
This Clause is a ridiculous piece of nonsense, and I hope the Government will find some more consummate draftsmen to put it into real English which will mean something and be capable of construction and of administration, if the Bill ever passes into law.

Question put, and agreed to. Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 5 to 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9.—(FINANCIAL ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN THE SOUTH OF SCOTLAND BOARD AND THE CENTRAL AUTHORITY.)

Mr. Woodburn: I beg to move, in page 7, line 18, after "District," to insert:
the South of Scotland Board shall issue stock to the Central Authority in respect of.
There are a number of Amendments which, Sir Charles, with your permission, we could take together.

The Chairman: Yes. Together with this Amendment we could take the following:
In page 7, line 19, to leave out from "subsections," to the first "and," in line 20.
In page 7, line 21, to leave out "loan," and to insert "stock."
In page 7, line 24, to leave out "loan," and to insert "stock."
In page 7, line 28, to leave out "loan," and to insert "stock."
In page 7, line 28, to leave out "arranged," and to insert "issued."
In page 7, line 32, after "such," to insert "British Electricity."
In page 7, line 33, to leave out "the expiry of the loan," and to insert:
the stock issued under this section has been redeemed.
In page 7, line 36, to leave out "loan," and to insert "stock issue."
In page 8, line 10, to leave out subsection (8), and to add:
"(8) Any stock issued by the South of Scotland Board under this section shall be deemed to be issued under section thirteen of the Act of 1943."
In Clause 12, page 9, line 34, to leave out from "a," to "by," in line 35, and to insert:
stock issue by the South of Scotland Board to that Authority.

Mr. Woodburn: From the discussions we have had on this Bill it appears that no one has thought out what the scheme was about and how it was going to work. The Government decided to carry out a pledge they gave, but no one seems to have thought what was going to happen as a result of the Bill. However, we on this side of the Committee have decided, as good democrats, the principle of the Bill having been decided, that wrought to make the Measure logical.
The Secretary of State's justification for the Bill is that he wants to give the control of this electricity authority to Scotland, but if that is going to be the case it must have had financial independence, otherwise it is not going to have complete control. As the Bill is drafted, it is going to be a subordinate authority to the main Authority, and, financially, it is going to be at the tail of the existing Authority. While we have no desire to have the Bill, if it is going to be put into force it would seem to be logical to remedy that state of affairs.
We have put down this series of Amendments in order that the Scottish Board will be able to issue its own stock, just as the Hydro-Electric Board does, and be independent of the Central Authority. The purpose of the Amendments is simple and clear, and they fit in with the avowed purpose of the Bill.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I am not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman and his friends have put down these

Amendments because the point which the right hon. Gentleman makes is a very reasonable one. The first point he puts is that this new Board must enjoy a full measure of independence, and he is a little anxious lest the financial provisions set out in this Clause may, in his own words, put the Board "financially at the tail of the existing Authority."
The right hon. Gentleman thinks that instead of dividing the duties between the Scottish authority and the B.E.A., it should be done by the Scottish Board issuing their stock in the way that the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board did in 1947. That is not an unreasonable view, and the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly entitled to make it; but, as the Committee will understand, it is obvious that the Scottish Board is going to take over a vast amount of property —generating stations, transmission lines, and a hundred and one other things and pieces of property—and we assume, although this can be only a rough, estimate, that the value will be about £70 million.
Now, part of that may be in cash, but as the right hon. Gentleman knows, when the British Electricity Authority took over from the existing undertakers in the south of Scotland, they gave those undertakers B.E.A. stock for their electricity concerns. Since then, the B.E.A. has had to issue further stock to sustain its gradual steady development, and the £70 million, by and large, is represented by stock which the B.E.A. has already issued.
What the right hon. Gentleman suggests would cost a considerable amount of money, for whether in the case of a nationalised board, or a private individual, stock cannot be floated—at least not stock of this value—without there having to be a fairly large payment; and from what we know of the cost of issuing stock, it is reasonable to say that the charges might amount to as much as £300,000 for the expenses of issue, and about £13,000 for the management of expenses. As a good Scot, I do not know why we should ask this Board to enter into this expenditure when it can simply undertake a loan from the B.E.A.
The other argument of the right hon. Gentleman is that he thinks, as he is entitled to do, that the loan method puts us a little under the control, if one cares


to put it that way, of the B.E.A., whereas the issuing of stock would not. But if the South of Scotland Board issues stock, the B.E.A. would have a kind of a holding in the Board, and my Scottish blood does not rise at the one idea and then cool off at the thought of the other. If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the question in that way, and if he remembers that after a great deal of thought has been expended by the accountants and experts who have explored every possible solution, this system appears most certainly to be the most sensible, the most practical, and the most economical, I think he will agree that we have done the best thing.
I am asked why, then, did the Hydro-Electric Board, when it was in a somewhat similar position, and being responsible for large properties, issue stock? The circumstances were different. At that very same time, the B.E.A. was issuing stock, and it appeared to the accountants who advised the then Secretary of State for Scotland, and the then Minister of Fuel and Power, that what was then done was the best way of handling the matter. I am only trying to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman, as one Scotsman to another, that in the present circumstances the method we propose in this Bill is the best method, according to the advice which we have been able to get.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Woodburn: It seems to us that the more we discuss this Bill, the more anomalies appear. The hon. Gentleman disarms us a little by his courtesy and charm after our previous experience tonight. This sudden appearance of reason on the other side of the Committee is a little disconcerting after the last hour and the resulting waste of time.
I must say to the hon. Gentleman that while we have just been told that we ought to agree to what is in the Bill because it is the best way of doing it, up to now we have been told that we should accept the Bill because we are prepared to be so independent in Scotland that we want our own Board, even if it costs us more for our electricity. It is all so contradictory that we cannot find any reason in it. As a Scot, I have no wish to force a considerable expenditure on the South of Scotland Board,

nevertheless this shows how irregular and illogical the Bill is, because none of it fits, none of it has been thought out properly, and it stands condemned for that reason.
Amendment negatived.

Mr. Woodburn: I beg to move, in page 7, line 23, at the end, to insert:
under an order to be laid before Parliament.
If this agreement is to be made between these two bodies, it would seem that at least it should be known to Parliament what are the terms on which it is made.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Here again I fancy that the right hon. Gentleman has put down his Amendment to elicit information, and I respond gladly. The point of the Amendment is to provide that the Secretary of State, the Minister of Fuel and Power and the Treasury shall convey in an order laid before Parliament the approval which they are required to give to the amount and terms of the loan agreed between the South of Scotland Board and the B.E.A.
As Parliamentarians we have immediate sympathy for that proposition, but what is it that would be presented to Parliament under this pattern? It would be merely a statement of account, a statement of fact, and there would be no argument about it. I do not think that that would be a suitable thing for presentation to the House in the way suggested by the Amendment.
Under Clause 9 (3) the amount and terms of the loan must be agreed by both the Boards and be approved by both Ministers and the Treasury. Failing agreement, the matter will be settled by the Ministers under Clause 10 (2). Any dispute, however, could relate only to questions of fact, not of policy, and in these circumstances it does not seem to me appropriate to suggest that this should be laid before Parliament.
I would remind the Committee that both the Board and the Authority will be bound to show in their annual accounts the settlement that has been reached, with the details of the interest payable, the expenses of management, and all the other items. These annual accounts are, of course, laid before Parliament and there should be ample opportunity for Parliamentary information and any subsequent desire for


Parliamentary debate and scrutiny. I hope it will be felt that everything is being done to maintain the proper interests of Parliament.
Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 10 to 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14.—(COMPENSATION TO OFFICERS AND MEMBERS OF BOARDS IN CONNECTION WITH TRANSFERS.)

Mr. John Edwards: I beg to move, in page 10, line 35, at the end, to insert:
(2) For the purpose of any regulation made under subsection (1) of this section the period of employment necessary to qualify for the payment of a compensation there under shall not exceed seven years immediately preceding the vesting date.
I have intervened for a few moments to raise a small but important point of some of the people concerned in receiving compensation. As I understand. Clause 14 brings forward provisions almost identical with those under the Act of 1947 in that it requires the South of Scotland Board to pay compensation on the same grounds as covered by the previous Act. There is one small point where we note a slight change. The Electricity Staff Benefit Regulations of 1949, under Clause 1 (2) say that they shall apply to people who have been employed during the period of not less than eight years immediately preceding the vesting date.
The South-East Scotland and the South-West Scotland Board came into existence on 1st April, 1948. and about that time the boards would have been recruiting staff and among other persons would no doubt have attracted others from outside the industry altogether. These persons obviously cannot have put in eight years by the time of the vesting date defined in this Bill as 1st April, 1955. I think it is not unreasonable to ask that those who joined the staffs of these two boards in 1948 should be covered by any compensation regulations that are made.
This Amendment seeks to cover those who would have been left undisturbed and free from financial loss and I hope that this has been made quite clear in its wording. If not, I hope that its principle will be acceptable to the Government.

Mr. Palmer: I want to support what has been said about the desirability of having a period of seven years with reference to staff compensation regulations. Under the 1947 compensation regulations, it was left to the Minister to make the regulations in effecting the relevant period to meet the entitlement of compensation and the qualifying period was put down as eight years.
The effect of the Amendment, if it is accepted, would be to bring into the scope of possible compensation those men and women who joined local government service, or possibly even company service, at that time and were almost immediately transferred to the new nationalised undertakings on the vesting date of 1st April, 1948. I think that somewhere it has been announced that the vesting date on which this Measure becomes operative is to be 1st April, 1955. Therefore, I think the Committee will see the relevance of having a shorter period than eight years. This would be to the convenience of the staff in the industry and I think the authorities would not regret it if the change were made.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. J. L. Clyde): I appreciate the purpose for which the Amendment is moved, but in its present form it should not be accepted. It is not customary, nor appropriate, to specify a detailed matter such as this. Minimum qualifications and matters of that sort are usually left to be specified in the regulations. That course has been followed in previous Acts, for instance, the compensation regulations under the Electricity Act, 1947, and similar regulations under the 1947 Transport Act and the 1953 Transport Act.
In the present case, provision is made for regulations which have to be submitted to Parliament in draft and they have to be subject to affirmative Resolution as provided for under Clause ‡4. When the existing compensation regulations under the 1947 Act were prepared the appropriate employers' and employees' organisations were consulted before the regulations were finally drafted. I can assure hon. Members that similar consultations will take place when the regulations which have to be made under this Measure are prepared and drafted.
In these circumstances, although I appreciate the purpose for which the Amendment is moved, and will bear the


matter in mind, I suggest to the Committee that the Amendment should not be accepted.

Mr. J. Edwards: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate that unless something is done in the regulations the effect of the Clause will be almost nugatory?

The Lord Advocate: Yes.

Mr. Edwards: Here we have a body which has not been in existence for eight years and, therefore, something should be done in the regulations. Cannot the right hon. and learned Gentleman go further and relieve anxieties in these circumstances?

The Lord Advocate: I am quite prepared to say that the point will be borne in mind. It is in print and, after this discussion, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Edwards: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Palmer: I want to raise a point on the general position of pension rights and superannuation in relation to the Bill. Section 54 of the 1947 Act, specifically provided for the maintenance of existing superannuation rights and gave the opportunity to the electricity boards to establish new pensions schemes for their staffs if they wished to do so.
Clause 14 relates to compensation to officers and members of the Board in connection with transfers, but there is no similar Clause specifically relating to pensions, and I wonder why that is so. It may be said that under this Clause no one's position in relation to pension rights will be worsened, but apparently there are to be no specific regulations as such on pensions, and that seems to be special to this particular Bill. The employees are wondering if there is any rational explanation for this.

11.15 p.m.

The Lord Advocate: This Clause does deal expressly with compensation. There is no intention to deprive anyone of pension rights, but I will certainly look into that matter to make absolutely sure.

Mr. Palmer: Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will also look at the opportunities given to authorities to establish new pension schemes if they desire to do so?

The Lord Advocate: Yes, we will do that.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15.—(EXPENSES.)

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move in page 11, line 7, to leave out "the Secretary of State," and to insert:
any Minister of the Crown or Government department.
This is an Amendment to bring the Bill into line with the Financial Resolution. It extends the provision for payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of expenses incurred by the Secretary of State as a result of the Bill. It extends this to cover expenses incurred by any Minister of the Crown or Government Department. The expenses may be incurred by the Minister of Labour in connection, for instance, with arbitration proceedings arising out of the provision of Clause 14. The Amendment gives authority for the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of expenses incurred in this way by the Minister of Labour as a result of the passing of the Bill. The Amendment is drawn in accordance with normal practice to cover any Minister of the Crown or any Government Department, but we do not anticipate that expenditure by any Minister other than the Secretary of State or the Minister of Labour is likely.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17.—(ADAPTATION OF ENACTMENTS AND REPEALS.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Hector Hughes: I had down an Amendment to leave out subsection (1) of the Clause, but I cannot, of course, argue with the Chair why it has not been selected, or even protest against it not having been called.
This is an extraordinary Bill. Its Clauses comprise 12 pages of print and the two Schedules 13 pages of somewhat smaller print. There is more in the two Schedules than there is in the rest of the Bill, and this Clause and the two Schedules together comprise more than half the Bill. As I submitted earlier, the Bill is very badly drafted. The Clause with which we are now dealing refers to more than 100 adaptations, modifications and repeals. I drew attention to this astonishing fact in the Second Reading debate, and I take this opportunity to do so again.
I wrote a letter to "The Times," expressing the hope that the Government would withdraw this astonishing Measure and redraft it nearer to the heart's desire and more in accordance with the traditions of good draftsmanship. They have not seen fit to do so, and I take this opportunity of showing up their evil ways and appealing to them to return to purity of diction and expression, especially in Parliamentary Bills.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 18 and 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Mr. McNeil: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
The Committee will appreciate that we have made a surprising amount of progress with the various considerations in front of us. As you will see, Sir Charles, there are three very long Amendments to the Schedules. Two are Government Amendments, one of which is very important, and there is another, standing in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends, which seems very important to us. It would be rather a pity if, having gone so far, we tried to garble the Schedules. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would indicate his intentions now. I do not think he will deny that we have made very satisfactory progress. For various reasons, with which he is quite familiar, we shall have a very thin Committee from now on and we are about to discuss subjects of great importance.

Mr. J. Stuart: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not press this Motion. As he says, we have made good progress, and we were still progressing

satisfactorily until he moved to report Progress. I cannot refer to the later Amendments on the Order Paper, but one of the main ones in the names of hon. Members opposite need not take up a great deal of time, as I hope to be able to meet them on it. I hope that we can complete the Committee stage without having to sit very much longer.

Mr. McNeil: I am indebted to the right hon. Gentleman. In view of his sot to voce assurance in regard to one of our Amendments—which assurance was completely out of order—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

First Schedule.—(ADAPTATION OF ENACTMENTS.)

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I beg to move, in page 16, line 46, at the end, to insert: Provided that—


(a) where any purchase of electricity is made by such a Board from a person in the district of the other Board, any such pur chase shall require the approval of that other Board; or
(b) where any purchase of electricity is made by such a Board from a person in the area of an Area Board, any such purchase shall require the approval of the Central Authority.


This is a very simple Amendment, which is needed merely to complete the arrangements under the Bill. It adds a proviso to the new subsection (3, a) which is inserted by the Bill in Section 16 of the 1943 Act. That subsection provided that the Scottish electricity boards may purchase electricity from any person other than an area board on such terms and conditions as may be agreed with that person.
The purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that if the North of Scotland Board or the South of Scotland Board wishes to take a supply from a person in the other board's area it must obtain the approval of that board. It is a matter of courtesy. If either Scottish board wishes to take a supply from a person in the area of a board over the border the Scottish board must obtain the approval of the British Electricity Authority. That is a matter of courtesy again. The purpose of this is that the generating authority of the areas concerned should have the first refusal of any supplies generated by any person in that area.

Mr. McNeil: It is a reasonable, technical Amendment and we are not going to oppose it. But I would take this opportunity of once again saying that the hon. Gentleman is admitting that there is no practical way by which to make this authority completely autonomous.

Mr. Stewart: I have said specifically before that the Bill does not put a barrier on the exchange of electricity between the North and South.

Amendment agreed to.

Commander C. E. M. Donaldson: I beg to move, in page 17, line 27, at the end, to insert:
The Authority established by section one shall be known by the name of the Central Electricity Authority and that name shall be substituted for the words "British Electricity Authority" wherever occurring.
This Amendment changes the name of the British Electricity Authority to Central Electricity Authority. If the Amendment is adopted the effect will be that from 1st April, 1955, it will be the Authority's legal title, and the name in which it will act—for example, in making contracts, dealing with correspondence or in other transactions—and the name by which it will be known to the public, such as in their annual report. Just as at present there are the initials B.E.A., to which the title is contracted, if the Amendment was adopted the initials would be C.E.A.
The reason for proposing the change in the name is that on 1st April next the functions of the authority in relation to the South of Scotland District will be transferred to the new South of Scotland Board, and there will be a complete change of authority. Subject to certain physical links with Scotland which will remain but the powers and duties of the British Electricity Authority will be confined to England and Wales only and it seems that the change is desirable. The title British Electricity Authority will no longer be appropriate, because it implies responsibility throughout the whole of Great Britain.
The new title Central Electricity Authority will distinguish the authority, with its general responsibility over England and Wales, from the area boards. Moreover, it involves the change of only one word in the present title of the British Electricity Authority and will,

therefore, reduce to a minimum the inconvenience and expense involved in such a change. In the Electricity Act 1947 the B.E.A. is referred to as "the Central Authority", and that is, indeed, the term used in the Bill itself. That is simply an abbreviation adopted for the convenience in the Electricity Acts to save words. It is not the official title of the British Electricity Authority and outside the context of the Electricity Acts "Central Authority" would be rather meaningless.
Section 1 of the 1947 Act which established the B.E.A. established it as the British Electricity Authority but went on to say that in the Electricity Acts it is referred to as the Central Authority. The change in name proposed in the Amendment will not in any way affect the use of the term Central Authority in the Electricity Acts, indeed, it will make that abbreviation much more apt. One effect will be to take away one of the two sets of initials B.E.A. relating to the British Electricity Authority and the British European Airways, which sometimes cause confusion.
As a whole the Bill gives effect to a further form of devolution for Scotland, and the Amendment if it is accepted will make it clear that there is a form of devolution. It will be welcomed as such by Scots, and while none of us in the Scottish section of the Committee wish to pass any reflection on Welsh Members we are proud of our Scottish way of thinking.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: The Government are happy to accept the Amendment.

Mr. McNeil: There is a procedural point that puzzles me, but I am not very good on such points. This means that the short title of the Bill must be redrafted. I suppose that that means the Government then bring in an Amendment on Report. I am very interested in this sudden decision to accept the Amendment. We shall be in a very curious position. We have a United Kingdom Ministry of Fuel and Power and we have answerable to it an English Authority; but, of course, it is not really an English Authority, because it has a role in relation to Wales. I hope that the Secretary of State for the Home


Department and Minister for Welsh Affairs was consulted.
What really activated the Amendment was the desire to erase the label by which this great Authority is recognised. I would not attempt to predict what a change of Government would do about this, but it would be reasonable surely, in this experimental period, as the Secretary of State said it was, to leave this great organisation, the British Electricity Authority, with its name, instead of this anonymous, bureaucratic, undescriptive title the hon. and gallant Gentleman wants to give it.
I think the Committee should have a little more explanation than the Parliamentary Secretary has given of the Government's anxiety to accept this sudden change. Many Members who do not normally take part in this Committee's work will be interested in this, and I think the hon. Gentleman should give us a fairly full explanation so that they can read it in HANSARD. I am sure that even if he is anxious to let the Committee get on with its work he will agree that rather more than eight words are necessary to explain the Government's anxiety to take this step.

Mr. Palmer: Like my right hon. Friend, I am startled at the way in which this has been done. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary could tell the Committee whether there has been any consultation with the British Electricity Authority on the point. Does it like this name particularly? Does it think it appropriate? I am not convinced by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Roxburgh and Selkirk (Commander Donaldson) that without the Amendment Scotland loses some right. The British Electricity Authority has existed since 1948, During the whole of the time there has been the autonomous North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board. Apparently it did not resent the B.E.A. or feel that the B.E.A. interfered with its autonomy.

Commander Donaldson: There is a good deal of talk about a sudden change. Notice of this Amendment was given on 29th March. It is quite clear from the wording what the intention is. There is nothing sudden about it as far as I am concerned.

Mr. Palmer: I still think it is. After all, it is a fairly obvious point which could have been in the Bill as first drafted. The point I made is one of substance, namely, that the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board did not feel that its self-respect, independence, or autonomy, were infringed by the British Electricity Authority using the word "British," and I do not believe that the South of Scotland Board will feel upset. I do not feel strongly about the matter, but I suggest that there might be more time for consultation. I would like to know whether the British Electricity Authority was consulted.

Commander Donaldson: The hon. Member and I were present at the second reading of the Bill, and in the brief remarks which I made then the general trend was that this might be necessary. I think I said then that I would not presume at that stage to settle the words of such change.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I should like to say a word in reply to what has been said, as I do not want to appear discourteous. The brevity of my speech was not intended to be so. I thought the arguments had been so adequately dealt with that it was unnecessary for me to add very much. So far as the facts to which reference has been made are concerned I accept them. Opinions are a matter for the individual. I can assure the hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Palmer) that the British Electricity Authority has no objection to the change of name. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. McNeil) that the long Title is right as it stands as it refers to the transfer of functions from the British Electricity Authority, and it is not until the Bill is passed that the Authority becomes the Central Electricity Authority.

Mr. McNeil: I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the explanation. I had not noted that. I am glad that the British Electricity Authority has been consulted, though I noticed that the hon. Gentleman did not say that the British Electricity Authority welcomed the change. He merely said that no objection was offered. It will cost B.E.A. quite a lot in repainting and notepaper; but I do not suppose that when the Tory Party wants to pursue a nasty bit


of propaganda it will hesitate to do so at the public expense.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I beg to move, in page 17, line 40, at the end, to insert:
In subsection (4), in paragraph (b), after the words "Central Authority" there shall be inserted the words "or, where the agreement relates to the acquisition of bulk supplies of electricity from any person in the district of a Scottish Electricity Board, with the approval of that Board.
This Amendment gives the other side of the picture, as it were, to the one I moved a few minutes ago. It requires the Central Authority, where an agreement relates to the acquisition of bulk supplies from any person in the district of a Scottish Board, to get approval of that board.
Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I beg to move, in page 20, line 31, at the end, to insert:
51. At end, add the following subsection:
(3) This section shall apply to the Central Authority as it applies to an Area Board.
This Amendment seeks to make good an omission. An area board and either Scottish Board has under the Electricity Act of 1947 the right to take up streets for the purpose of providing supplies of electricity outside its own area. This gives the Central Authority the same right if it is needed. It will be appreciated that at some time one or other of the boards may want for the general advantage of the community to take supplies from an area in another board's territory.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Palmer: I beg to move, in page 20, to leave out lines 32 to 45, and to insert:
In subsection (1) for the words from "to seek consultation" to "such agreements" there shall be substituted the words "the North of Scotland Board and the South of Scotland Board to seek joint consultations with any orgnisation appearing to them to be appropriate with a view to the conclusion between the aforesaid Electricity Boards and that organisation of such joint agreements.
For subsections (2) to (4) there shall be substituted the following subsections—
(2) It shall be the duty of every Area Board to comply with any agreement entered

into for the purposes of this section by the Central Authority, and that Authority before entering into any such agreement as aforesaid shall consult with the Area Boards.
(3) Electricity Boards which are a party to any agreement entered into for the purposes of this section shall send to the Minister, the Secretary of State and the Minister of Labour and National Service, a copy of that agreement.
The hour is late and I am sure we all shall be glad to see our beds. Therefore, I propose to be as brief as I can on this Amendment. I hope the Committee will appreciate, however, that it is an extremely important Amendment, and particularly important to employees in the electricity supply industry who will be affected by the passing of this Bill.
The intention of the Amendment is to give effect to a point which was raised sharply on Second Reading by my hon. Friends and myself. The point is this. Whatever good or ill is done by the Bill, the principle of national United Kingdom negotiations for wages, salaries and conditions within the industry should be preserved. I think it is well-known that there is a very highly developed system of collective bargaining in electricity supply. There are a considerable number of Joint Whitley Councils which have been established for a number of years and they have worked successfully. The electricity supply industry is certainly one in which there are good labour relations on the whole.
As the Minister knows there have been very strong representations from the electricity supply trade unions and staff associations to him on this point of national negotiations. Those representations were made at an early stage and discussions have continued since that time. The Trades Union Congress has also made representations to the right hon. Gentleman and it was very anxious that any change in the matter of the negotiating machinery brought about by this Bill should not be a precedent for other nationalised industries It is particularly relevant, I feel, to state that the Scottish Trades Union Congress, in addition, has been in touch with the right hon. Gentleman to see whether he could take steps to preserve the principle of national negotiations.
If I may without putting myself out of order, I should like to explain a matter on which there is often much misunder


standing. That misunderstanding was apparent on Second Reading. Section 53 of the 1947 Act, which this Schedule alters, does not concern itself—and this is most important—with everyday discussion of wage rates, salary scales, and so on. Section 53 is concerned only with the establishment of machinery for collective bargaining and the recognition of trade unions, but not with the further agreement which arise from that.
There is no question of this Amendment, if it is accepted by the Committee, doing what was suggested by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling) on Second Reading—I am sorry he is not in his place; he was here a short time ago— namely, of lazy trade union officials making Parliament do their job for them. Trade union officials in the electricity supply industry, as in most industries, are able to do their jobs for themselves, and they prefer that the detailed negotiations on salaries and wages and conditions should be free to the industry itself to resolve.
As drafted, the Bill leaves the three proposed authorities free to act separately and individually. The Amendment, if carried, will compel them to act jointly and collectively in the matter of wage and salary bargaining machinery. The general effect of it in the electricity supply industry will be to preserve unaltered the existing successful collective bargaining arrangements on a national United Kingdom basis.
It will also remove a certain amount of fear which existed among the Scottish employees of the electricity authorities of breaking away from national negotiations and consequent lower standards. I am not disclosing any secret if I say that, since the Second Reading of the Bill, there have been further negotiations with the Minister, and although trade union opinion is still hostile to the Bill itself, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will now say that in this matter at least he is a reasonable and understanding man.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. J. Stuart: I am grateful for the way in which these negotiations between the Government and the unions have been conducted, and also for the very helpful part which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cleveland (Mr. Palmer)

has played in them. I can also say, straight away, that I am willing to accept the Amendment which he has moved. Right hon. and hon. Members may recall that on Second Reading I endeavoured to say that I had no desire to break existing agreements, or negotiating machinery between the unions and the management, and, for the sake of the record, I think I ought briefly to state the gist of what I wrote to the hon. Gentleman on 2nd April last.
I then stated that if these amendments were made, and if the Bill became law, the existing agreements for the electricity industry would continue; the two Scottish Boards being deemed by Clause 18 (4) of the Bill to be parties to them, unless and until they are altered. If they were terminated, it would, under Section 53 as we propose it, become the duty of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, the South of Scotland Electricity Board, and the B.E.A., to seek consultation with any appropriate organisation with a view to securing joint agreement with that organisation.

Mr. Woodburn: I should like to thank the Secretary of State for the manner in which he has met us in the negotiations on this matter, and also for his acceptance of the Amendment. I must say that it is pleasant to see him reappearing in the rôle of Dr. Jekyll because we have had Mr. Hyde for so long, in more than one meaning of the word, and really I am glad, if he has been refreshed in some way, that he has come back with some sort of courtesy and some measure of good will for the Committee. I hope that he will not lose it before we reach the Report stage, but will then again come forward in helping us to get along with the least possible trouble rather than that he should behave as he has done earlier today; for that will cause the greatest possible trouble.

Mr. Palmer: I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman, on behalf of the unions concerned, for his accommodating action.

Amendment agreed to.

The Chairman: To save the time of the Committee it may be convenient—as there is a consequential Amendment to the next Amendment in the name of the Secretary of State for Scotland—if the


hon. Gentleman moves his Amendment to page 23, line 16, column 2 in its amended form. The consequential Amendment is in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Roxburgh and Selkirk (Commander Donaldson) and is to line 12, leave out "British," and insert "Central," We have just amended the Schedule to put in that word.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I am happy to accept your suggestion, Sir Charles. I beg to move, in page 23, line 16, column 2, to leave out from the beginning, to end of line 34, on page 24, and to insert:
For subsections (2) and (3) there shall be substituted the following subsections—
(2) The Minister of Fuel and Power (in relation to England and Wales) and the Secretary of State (in relation to the South of Scotland District) shall ascertain and certify, for the calendar year nineteen hundred and forty-seven, the total number of units of electricity to be taken into account under subsection (5) or (6) of this section.
(3) The Minister of Fuel and Power or the Secretary of State, as the case may be, shall then ascertain and certify the amount by which the total number of units to be so taken into account for the last calendar year ending before the beginning of the year for which the payment by the Central Electricity Authority or the South of Scotland Electricity Board is to be made exceeds or falls short of the number ascertained under subsection (2) of this section.
For subsection (5) there shall be substituted the following subsections—
(5) In relation to England and Wales, the number of units to be taken into account for any year is—

(a) the total number of units supplied in England and Wales to consumers by authorised undertakers (in the case of the year nineteen hundred and forty-seven) or by Electricity Boards (in the case of any other year); less
(b) forty-five per cent, of the units transmitted in that year by authorised undertakers or Electricity Boards from Scotland to England and Wales; plus
(c) forty-five per cent, of the units transmitted in that year by authorised undertakers or Electricity Boards from England and Wales to Scotland.

(6) In relation to the South of Scotland District, the number of units to be taken into account for any year is—

(a) the total number of units supplied in the South of Scotland District to consumers by authorised undertakers (in the case of the year nineteen hundred and forty-seven) or by Electricity Boards (in the case of any other year); less
(b)) forty-five per cent, of the units transmitted in that year by authorized

undertakers or Electricity Boards from England and Wales or the North of Scotland District to the South of Scotland District; plus
(c) forty-five per cent, of the units transmitted in the year by authorised undertakers or Electricity Boards to England and Wales or the North of Scotland District from the South of Scotland District.

(7) For the purposes of this section—

(a) 'authorised undertakers' means authorised undertakers within the meaning of section thirteen of the Electricity Act, 1947;
(b) consumer' does not include an authorised undertaker or Electricity Board;
(c) Electricity Board' has the meaning assigned to it by section one of the Electricity Act, 1947."

I should like to remind the Committee that electricity boards do not pay rates in the same way as ordinary people. They pay lump sums, based partly upon a basic valuation in the earlier part of their life and partly upon fine amount of electricity which they distribute in the area. Those lump sums are collected by the B.E.A. and, so far as Scottish areas are concerned, they are paid over in a lump sum to the Secretary of State, who then reimburses the local authorities concerned. In the case of the Hydro-Electricity Board, they pay to the Secretary of State and he reimburses the local authorities.
The first method, which we had of doing this by way of an Amendment to the 1948 Local Government Act, turned out on examination not to be entirely satisfactory and to be a little unfair to England, and, therefore, we looked at it with our experts to see whether we could not arrive at a more equitable and clearer way of reaching the same end. I give the Committee the assurance that all that has been done here is to find a neater way of doing the same thing.

Mr. McNeil: I cannot speak for the Committee, but I am indebted to the hon. Gentleman for his lucid explanation. I have to take it on faith because I do not understand it, but I would be in great trouble if I did not ask the hon. Gentleman whether it is his opinion that this will be more beneficial to the constituency I represent than the previous arrangements? Because I have never been in doubt that previously the burgh of Greenock was robbed of a substantial


amount of money in the sense that they never got the fair proportion of the rates due to them. I am sure that when the Joint Under-Secretary of State tells us that it is a better application, he means that all these local authorities will find it beneficial. I am a little suspicious of his tenderness for England at this stage, but perhaps we shall hear more about that later.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Second Schedule.—(ENACTMENTS REPEALED.)

J. Stuart: I beg to move, in page 25, line 19, column 3, after "of," to insert "section fourteen of."
This Amendment is required to correct a printing error in Part I of the Second Schedule, since the Bill as it stands repeals the whole of the adaptation and modification of the Electric Lighting Act of 1882. With that assurance, a genuine assurance, I hope that the Committee will accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 111.]

PROPERTY, EXETER (COMPULSORY PURCHASE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Vosper.]

11.55 p.m.

Mr. Dudley Williams: Although I have had considerable correspondence with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government and his Parliamentary Secretary on this subject, I am very glad to have this opportunity of raising in the House what I consider to be the very unfair treatment of certain property owners in my constituency. This is caused by the complexity of the compensation provisions under the War Damage Acts and the Town and Country Planning Acts.
The difficulty arises originally from the War Damage Acts, under which the owner of a blitzed property could receive, according to circumstances, either the

cost of works payment, which was intended to pay for the rebuilding where the building was not a total loss, or a value payment, where the building was a total loss and was not to be rebuilt. For present purposes I confine myself to a cost-of-works payment and especially to cost-of-works payments in respect of property which was to be subject to compulsory purchase by the local authority.
Section 58 of the 1947 Act is the Section which provided for the payment of compensation to owners of property for the taking over by the State of their development values. It set up the £300 million fund for this purpose and was to apply to all land which had a development value on the appointed day—1st July, 1948.
Section 59 provided for additional payments for war-damaged land, and said that where such land stood to receive a value payment and was, because of the war damage more valuable—where old poor class property was wiped out leaving the site available for a more profitable purpose, then, since that extra development value was being taken away by the Act, the owner should get a higher payment. This Section was limited only to one type of land war-damaged and one for which a value payment was to be made. A scheme was later to be made settling the details as to making claims and payments.
Under these Sections of the 1947 Act owners could submit claims for lost development values caused by the effect of that act, but many people, both professional and lay, interpreted Section 58 as applying only to unblitzed property which had development value and, therefore, those who owned blitzed property did not submit claims under Section 58.
I cannot say whether their interpretation of the Sections was faulty. What I can say is that owners did not appreciate their position in relation to exclusion from compensation until the Central Land Board issued the Scheme—the Planning Payments (War Damage) Scheme, 1949, which expressly excluded these Section 59 claims from the ordinary compensation for depreciation of land values occasioned by the 1947 Act. By the time that scheme was made it was too late for the owners to submit their claims under Section 58. In the meantime, some compulsory purchase orders


had been made under Section 53 of the same Act and the compensation payable ignored compensation for the loss of development value that might have been inherent in the property, or in the site on which it stood.
When the Central Land Board assessed compensation for the ordinary loss of development value under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, it again excluded any such development value. I am informed on the advice of very distinguished counsel and other professional advisers that the interpretation of the Central Land Board is certainly open to challenge, but how far it could be fought in a court of law with any prospect of success following the issue of the Statutory Instrument which regularises the position after the damage has been done, is very questionable and certainly might be very difficult to settle.
My constituents did not put in their claims in a casual manner. They obtained professional advice before doing so and, since the decision has been made that their claims were made under the wrong Section of the Act, many of them have sought the opinion of counsel as to whether that is a correct decision. After reading two opinions of eminent counsel in these cases, it is clear to me that there must have been considerable doubt in the minds of professional advisers at the time that these claims were put in. Therefore, I think that something should be done by Her Majesty's advisers to rectify the situation.
I quote the words of one of these learned gentlemen who expressed his opinion:
Having regard to the fact that the case clearly falls within the words of Section 59 (2, b) of the Act of 1947, it is not surprising that the claimants refrained from making a claim under Section 58 in the expectation that they would get a larger payment by claiming under Section 59 and it is most unfortunate that they could not know that the case would not fall within the ambit of the scheme under Section 59 until the time for claiming under Section 58 had expired.
In the case of another opinion it is stated that the
misconception which has arisen in relation to the making of claims under Section 58 … is a reasonable one.
These claims are not late claims. They were claims that were made under Section 59 of the Act and were only

invalidated, if at all, by the regulations which were subsequently made. There have been cases where claims have been made under Section 58 have been found to have been made in error. I have not particulars of these, but I understand that they exist in the Department of my hon. Friend. These property owners have subsequently been allowed to transfer their claims to Section 59. Surely if this was permitted, claims made in error under Section 59 because the regulation had not been issued should be transferred to the proper Section, 58.
I maintain that the Minister has power to rectify this, because subsection (5) of Section 58 of the Town and Country Planning Act says:
The power of the Treasury to make a scheme under this Section should include the power to amend any such scheme to a subsequent scheme made thereunder.
I think that gives the Minister the necessary power he must have to put the matter right. I know that my right hon. Friend has given very considerable consideration to this unfortunate situation but the purpose of my appeal tonight is to ask him to review the matter once more.
Several of my constituents have suffered severely. One in particular has lost several thousand pounds if the present state of affairs is to be allowed to continue. How many other property owners in other blitzed cities—London. Plymouth, Southampton, Bristol and others—are suffering, I do not know, but in such a mass of complicated legislation as war damage and town and country planning any citizen should be given the benefit of the doubt, and I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to offer some comfort.

12.5 a.m.

Dr. Horace King: The empty benches show that the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams) has raised a matter of some importance to himself and his constituents. He has done so by the good will of other Members of the House who jealously protect the rights of Private Members to raise matters on the Adjournment. I hope that he will afford that same tolerance to other hon. Gentlemen when they, too, are exercising a privilege of Private Members.

12.6 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Ernest Marples): I would congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams) on the reasonable and lucid way he has presented a most complicated and complex subject, and I would also say he has been very tenacious in the assiduity with which he has followed the rights of his constituents. I envied him his intricate knowledge and grasp of these complicated problems.
There may be some doubt on the question whether a way could be found to help my hon. Friend's constituents, but the more important question is whether there is any real ground for the complaint made. The provisions of the legislation which give rise to the trouble are very complex indeed. I think the simple way to expound them is to consider what was in mind in regard to development value, first, under the War Damage Act of 1943, and, secondly, under the Town and Country Planning Act of 1947.
The War Damage Act dates from a time when development charge had not been invented. No attempt had been made in legislation to separate existing use value from development value. The payments provided for by the Act were, broadly speaking, payments representing the cost of works involved in making good the war damage; or, in the case of total loss as a result of the war damage, value payments. The value payments were assessed on a comparison between the value of the property before and after the damage had been sustained.
As, of course, was often true the value of the site after damage might be as great as or even greater than the value of the site before the damage. The bomb actually assisted matters by knocking down the building. Value payments in consequence were sometimes depressed by the presence of development value which in the ordinary way remained in the hands of the property owner. That was the position under the relatively simple War Damage Act.
The Town and Country Planning Act. 1947, passed by a previous Administration, was intended to secure a complete separation between the development

value on the one hand and the value of property for existing use on the other. Development value was taken over by the State with effect from 1st July, 1948, and no one had the right to develop land beyond that date without paying a development charge. The £300 million fund was set up as a source of payment which was to be made to the generality of owners who could show that their land possessed development value on the appointed day.
Under Section 59 of the 1947 Act there was a separate scheme for payments in cash by the Treasury to owners who could show that a value payment due under the War Damage Act had been depressed by the presence of development value on their land. This was an entirely separate scheme from the £300 million scheme, but it must be emphasised that nothing could be claimed under the war damage scheme which could not also be claimed under the general scheme. The difference between the two was that under Section 59 the owners would be paid in cash, quickly, and could expect 100 per cent, and that is in rather startling difference to claims under Section 58.
These are the broad lines on which development value was dealt with in these two Acts. A great deal more detail is required to appreciate the misunderstanding which has provoked the troubles of my hon. Friend's constituents in Exeter. In a compulsory acquisition the position alters. This was clear on the face of the Act itself. The two Acts contain special provisions about the effect of compulsory purchase on payment for war damage. The combined effect of Section 14 of the War Damage Act and Section 53 of the Act of 1947 was that in the event of a compulsory purchase any owner otherwise entitled to a cost of works payment did not receive that payment; for, obviously, he could not make good war damage if the land had been taken from him.
Instead, the payment was converted into a value payment, and that payment was diverted from the owner to the acquiring authority, who paid him the value of his property as if the war damage had been made good. This ensured that a full and adequate payment would be made by the authority for the existing use-value of land, but the effect of


the provision on what might be obtained by the owner in respect of development value might be considerable. The basis of any claim he might make on the £300 million fund was to be the difference between the restricted value and the unrestricted value, the unrestricted value being, in effect, the open market value.
In these Exeter cases with which we are now dealing, where acquisition took place at the nationally restored value, that value, which was often fairly high, was required to be taken as the restricted value. It became the floor for the calculation of the development value. The result was that in calculating the development value for the purposes of a claim on the £300 million fund a perfectly good building had to be assumed to be on the land, and the cost of removing it might sometimes be so high that no claim could be established.
We are not concerned with the question whether this was right or wrong. In an Adjournment debate we cannot discuss future legislation, and at this point we cannot discuss whether this legislation was right or wrong. It was very hotly debated at the time. The provision had the effect I have described, but in spite of that effect many people who were bought out on the notionally-restored basis did establish claims on the £300 million fund under Section 58.
Some may have thought that on the basis of Section 59 they could have obtained payment in cash under the schemes to be made under that Section, instead of waiting for a share in the distribution of the £300 million fund. That is what these people in Exeter thought. They omitted to do what everyone else in a similar position appears to have done, that is, not only entered a claim under Section 59, but also a claim on the £300 million fund. Despite the complexity of the provisions to which reference has been made, there is no real justification for people to have relied solely on the Section 59 scheme.
The case put before the House is that the provisions of Section 59 itself enable the scheme to cover not only cases where a value payment was appropriate, but also cases where a cost of works payment was appropriate but was

changed to a value payment. One type of case where this happened, though not the only one, was where the land had been bought compulsorily. The scheme as made did not cover cases of this sort. The result was that people who, on professional advice, did not claim on the £300 million fund, but waited for the Section 59 scheme, really missed the boat. Therefore, it is argued, they should have a further opportunity to claim.
I must confess that at first sight this seems a convincing argument, but it ignores the effect of a compulsory purchase. It was known to all those concerned in Exeter that their properties were to be acquired by the council. It was known that the payment made to them by the council would be the value that the property would have if the whole of the damage had been made good, in other words, the notionally restored value. The war damage payment would have been made to the council and not them. For the development value they had to look to the State, and I am bound to say with the greatest of respect to my hon. Friend that it should have been obvious that a Section designed as Section 59 plainly was from the outset to supplement the value payment would not be of use to them.
They knew they could not be concerned with the assessment of the value payment and with the question whether the amount was depressed by development value. Their only promising course would have been a claim on the £300 million fund. This they did not do. My hon. Friend submits now that there is no reason why the omission should not be remedied at the taxpayers' expense. They found out their mistake when the scheme under Section 59 was published in December, 1949, in Statutory Instrument 2243 of 1949. That scheme excluded from its scope the supplementation of value payments, where the reason for the value payment was that a cost-of-works payment had become inappropriate through compulsory acquisition of the damaged land.
My hon. Friend next mentioned claims in error under Section 58, and suggested that they could be shunted to Section 59. That does not affect the argument. When the suggestion was made to shunt the extra claims it was too late. Even if it was considered right that some means


should have been found to enable the people concerned to put in a valid claim for payment of development values it is doubtful whether it would be possible to arrange it without legislation. The 1947 Act provides no specific power to amend the scheme made under Section 59 and the nature of the claims on the £300 million fund is altered by the 1953 Act which suspended payment pending further amending legislation which is now under consideration by a Standing Committee.
In that Bill the Government have taken the view that people who failed to claim for whatever reason would not be allowed to make them now. My right hon. Friend has referred to it as the Domes-day Book and if it is not there it cannot be reopened. The case here mentioned represents one category in which a claim might have been made, but was not made The Government have made it clear beyond peradventure that the Domesday

Book is closed and claims cannot be readmitted. My hon. Friend has pursued the matter practically and tenaciously, and although I have no hope that decision by the Minister will be altered, I will, in view of what he has said, look carefully at his remarks in HANSARD and see whether there are any points which I have not answered and will communicate with him.
There is no hope of reopening the wider aspect by which many people throughout the country could re-establish claims, and there is no hope of giving relief to his constituents who did not make claims. But in view of the lucid and reasonable way in which he has put forward the case I will examine it again, although I make no promise whatever.

Adjourned accordingly at Nineteen Minutes past Twelve o'clock a.m.